This seems to apply to several other bands as well. After a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Pink Floyd songs seemed to agree with this guideline, I went ahead and redirected some obviously non-notable song articles to the parent album articles, as the guideline suggests. This is currently controversial to some, and I have nominated at AfD one article whose redirection is contested. Question; if there is no longer consensus for this guideline, does it need to be rewritten? The only logical argument I have spotted in favor of keeping articles liker this is that the fame of the article and/or the album makes every song inherently notable. Seems like a stretch to me, and it seems like it would apply to an awful lot of bands if the decision is left in the hands of fans of the band (as apparently is the case here). What do others think? --John (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key line from WP:NSONG is a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. If there is enough verifiable material for an article to be expanded beyond a stub then an article can exist. Mega-successful bands like Pink Floyd, the Beatles, and Led Zeppelin have so much written about them that yes detailed articles can be written about virtually every one of their songs. J04n(talk page) 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point, but what does "reasonably detailed" mean in this context? Seems to me that in most cases it will consist of the song name, credits, recording details (all already available on the album article), possibly some OR about the song's "meaning", and a list of bands nobody has heard of who have covered it. This seems not to match our usual understanding of notability. --John (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using "Breathe" as an example which you nominated for Afd: The article has a sourced section detailing the song's authorship and composition. It has also been covered by the London Philharmonic Orchestra arranged by Jaz Coleman (both pretty notable I hope you would agree). I agree that Sea of Green may not be notable, but I think that's now kind of irrelevant given the other information. "Reasonably detailed" will vary from case to case, which is to be expected - every article must make it's own claim to notability. --JD554 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question on this language from WP:NSONGS: do we truly mean "performed", or do we mean "released as a recording by"? It came up during an AFD where the song had been performed live by another artist, but not released. Does showing up on a concert set list truly lend towards notability?—Kww(talk) 22:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its got to be released/recorded unless a live performance of the song garned lots of independent coverage. simply performing a song could easily be written on artist's tour page etc. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favor of changing the language to read "released as a recording by" or something similar. J04n(talk page) 00:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that clarification. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the above comments by J04n and Jclemens are a good solution. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also with that clarification --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone ahead and made the change per Kww's proposal. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a "clarification", I see it as a significant change to the rules, and though I appear to be rather outnumbered I still want to say for the record that I support the previous version and oppose the change. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with CMP that the wording change is a 'significant change to the rules' (a change that I agree with BTW). We should allow time for others to voice their views, particularly since much of the discussion occurred over the weekend. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So according to CMP what would have been done in the AfD situation described by Kww? Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that depends how important the performance is. If it was just part of their band's set in some concert as part of a tour somewhere or other then that performance is not really that significant; if it was performed as part of some major commemoration for some poignant reason (say some minor anti-war song was performed at a 9/11 concert at Ground Zero by Eminem but he never recorded it officially), then that performance might be highly significant. We would need the coverage in RSs as ever, though, to justify inclusion of the fact and then that fact might just elevate the song to notability. Case-by-case, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me, although I have a hard time imagining a situation where a song in that situation would fail every other criterion--we only need it to pass one. I'm open to further clarification of the text--a change doesn't mean the discussion can't continue. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true: the song chosen would hardly be some third rate song written by a couple of 6th-graders after school! The point I was making, though, is that live performances need to be contextualised if they alone are to raise a song to notability. An official recording, OTOH, takes time to plan, record, produce, market, etc etc, so an important artist like Eminem recording a song is far more likely to be an indicator of notability than his performing it live (possibly off-the-cuff, possibly highly planned and fully rehearsed as part of some major event) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do we even have "albums" and "labels" and such anymore? I am trying to figure out the notability of Megan and Liz. On the one hand, by the typical old standards they are not notable. But the fact that they have fan sites in various countries makes me wonder. One of their YouTube videos reportedly has 1.2 million hits. Is that a lot or a little? Does it convey notability? I have no idea. Should we add an "x number of YouTube views" or something to the standard? Also, they have an "album", sort of, but it doesn't physically exist (I don't think), so it doesn't have a "label", either minor or indie (I guess); but is available to be "bought" from itunes.com and amazon.com, which seem to me to be notable entities. I don't know if sales from these entities are reflected in any chart. Do we need to update the standards? Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An album is an album and a single is a single, however they are sold or physically manifest. Sales charts are objective reality. Airplay is objective reality. Youtube views don't represent any editorial control, so they're not RS, but RS lists of online sales are valid RS. The one thing that hasn't (and probably won't) change is the press: online press covers as much as print press does, so as long as we're giving a fair shake to "new media" sources which meet our RS standards, we should be fine. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for your reply. What you say is lucidating. But one passage I don't understand: "Youtube views don't represent any editorial control" and so are not reliable. Does this mean that these numbers can be gamed, or faked, or edited by YouTube? Or what? Because it may be that one important way the young people consume music nowadays is through YouTube views? (I'm not sure if this is so, but it seems it may be.) YouTube views are free, but so is listening to the radio... I'm just... what if these kids Megan and Liz are being watched/listened to by scores of thousands of fans or even hundreds of thousands of fans or even millions of fans, we would never know this, right? It would pass right under our radar... I just don't want Wikipedia to be passed by... Herostratus (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers could be faked by YouTube, although I don't think that's likely. I think the tradition of industry press summarizing the goings-on is a good model for us to follow, even though the Internet is cutting out middlemen left and right. YouTube, Pandora, etc. can actually give us listener statistics, while the "Top 40" and other charts focused on airplay, with little or no respect to whether or not anyone was actually listening. :-) So, the analogy is inexact, but probably a reasonable compromise for the moment. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with YouTube hits is that they tell us neither about how many people have watched the video nor for how long. 1.1 million "hits" could be 1.1 million people watching the whole video or 1 person watching part of the video 1.1 million times... or anything in between (most likely). Charts are more likely to reflect individual sales (though people do but multiple copies of songs etc for various reasons) and airplay is more likely to reflect the demand from the public to hear the work (though, again, this isn't perfect either). As Jclemens says, the best indicator of notability remains the coverage and independent critical analysis in newspapers (reviews of concerts, songs, albums etc, editorials and articles about the band, album, etc). These are increasingly online, though there is no guarantee that an article will stay at the same URL and finding archives can be difficult so we have to constantly chase the sources around the net! Herostartus makes a good point about online releases, though: will there be a time when charts are no longer viable since bands simply promote their works through social networking sites, YouTube, etc, cutting out the radio stations and publishing companies altogether? Possibly. Will the newspapers stop writing about these "virtual bands"? Possibly. What then? ... --Jubilee♫clipman 15:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prosperosity recently did an overhaul of Superfly (artist), and in the process removed redlinks for two of the group's singles because they "did not chart notably enough to warrant articles". My understanding of this notability guideline is that if it charts at all, the song is notable for inclusion. Both are singles released by the group, both did not get above #50 on the Oricon Charts, and the other charts were made after these particular singles came out.

So basically, would they get articles?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other criterion in WP:NSONGS is that there has to be enough material to create more than a stub. If all people can source is the infobox and an article that basically repeats the infobox in verbiage, that's a stub in my book.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to trouble you, but I'd appreciate some comment on Derek Murawski

On one hand, this is the worst sort of COI self-promotion (albeit innocently GF). Recent creation by user:Dmurawski (who appears to be the subject, not a spoof or a label's PR shill) and a heavily promotional tone, before an upcoming release. He's a musician, but when the article itself describes the subject as a "minor internet celebrity" and has to qualify even that as "minor", then we're clearly on the borderline of WP:N. It does attempt to claim notability, but by relying on such phrases as, "has been subscribed to by many popular & influential YouTube users", which is a pretty weak claim.

He has released a single. It has been downloaded. Some web sites listed it. Is that enough? Are those sources anywhere near adequate?

I'm tempted to AfD it for the COI issue (a slippery slope we really mustn't encourage), but I'm unfamiliar with the music guidelines and would appreciate other's opinions. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now up for speedy deletion on the grounds of blatant COI promo, and the fact the article was deleted before. Dl2000 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now deleted: This is Derek Murawski's third go at getting his vanity article on Wikipedia (lots of sock puppetry going on too). See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DMurawski (deleted May 2008) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Murawski twice (deleted December 2009 and June 2010). Memphisto (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both pages should be WP:SALTed if this guy keeps recreating himself (in more ways that one) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bring this up again but I'm noticing that more and more of the work I'm doing cleaning up music articles surrounds the notability of songs and albums. Take "You Lost Me (Christina Aguilera song)" and "Love All Over Me" both songs which clearly failed WP:NSONGS but because they are by recognised artists and because there are fans willing to edit war over it both have had to be taken through WP:AFD. To me it seems silly when the NSONGS guideline has been applied with common sense as suggested on the page's header. I thought the whole point of policies and guidelines where to provide guides and rules. But it seems to me that if there are enough fans supporting the article a AFD seems more important and more overiding than actual rules and guidelines. I ask is not inappropriate for articles like "You Lost Me" to be created when NSONGS clearly says "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might review the notabilty guide in the same manner as I have reviewed the MoSes soon. There are all sorts of strange anomalies on this page. I would favour adding something to the effect that just because the artist that performs the song is notable this does not necessarily mean the song is automatically notable. I would also personally favour not allowing an article until the single has actually charted unless there is very good reason (and, therefore, we have a great many sources). BTW, there are still no guidelines for classical compositions! Is Spiegel im Spiegel notable, for example? No idea... though I do know that it is very well known among classical music lovers (and that the article is bl**dy awful...) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that another criteria such as "is there worthwhile anything to write about?" should apply (as with any other "sub-article")in addition to notability. To take a most-extreme example for illustration purposes, if a multi-platinum cupcake produces a platinum ear candy song, it is probably "notable", but the subject (the song) has little or no encyclopedic content for a separate article. Maybe just enough for a paragraph in the article on the artist. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense and is exactly what Lil-unique is saying, I think. The present guideline is rather fudged, actually. Or rather, there is so much blurb to read and digest that the main point is ultimately lost in all those words. We definitely need to look again at that section and make it much clearer --Jubilee♫clipman 14:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]