"Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable."

This is incredibly poorly worded and difficult to parse. Reading "...works whose source is..." sends my writer's ear into spasms. If we are staying away from the current GNG and going with this older formulation, why not emulate its much better written form? I suggest:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

As a side note, "reliable" should probably be updated to link to WP:IRS rather than WP:SOURCE.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds better to me, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled by criteria six which says:

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

By having this, we're steering this guideline too far away from the GNG. A person can meet this criteria yet have very little sources on them. The two groups that a person has been a member of can themselves just scrape notability, and in these cases, the individual members are even less notable. Also, it can lead to things being circular, in which musicians and ensembles all support each other using this criteria, creating a walled garden. So, let's just erase this swiftly. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't. We've discussed this before, and it would be in the archives somewhere--there must be RS'es which establish the notability of the entities on which dependent notability is claimed. The previous consensus was that you can't use infinite regress; if X relies on Y and Z to establish notability, Y cannot in turn rely on V and W to establish its own notability. If there's been an abuse of this, I'll be happy to go remedy it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean; "independent" already excludes one of my concerns (I need to learn to read). I'm proposing to remove the whole criteria, though, because a person satisfying it can still fail the GNG by a large margin. For a person who's been in two independently notable bands, all the sources on that individual could be in relation to the bands, and the sources that establish the two bands' notability might only give passing mention to the individual, so that an article satisfying this criteria could feasibly say nothing more than "is a member of X, previously a member of Y". In this case it fails the GNG by a wide margin. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if the person is in two notable bands, where are they going to be covered? Just in each band's article? That gives no context to the topic of that individual. Consider Ricky Phillips as an example of someone who might be denied an article if the criteria were removed. Does it really hurt anything to have an article on someone like him? Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hmmm...I did not know the wording had changed. In regards to "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" appears, at face value, to make it somewhat harder to meet but would also allow for a lot more debates on why an act was notable. That brings back the whole circular argument - "If band D is a notable band than certainly band A was notable because it was the start of the singer in band D's musical career, and that means the singers other bands, band B and C, are also notable. And given that the drummer in band C was also in 5 other bands those bands should be notable as well because the guitar player in one of those bands went on to be in band Y, which is most definitely a notable act." There is already enough of that sort of thing, especially on the indy circuit, or with musicians living in Hollywood. We had a lot of discussion on it when it read thusly: Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. I see one of the important parts missing now is that "most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Just for some "real" world examples - Because Meldrum was notable is Linda McDonald notable because she was in Phantom Blue with Michelle Meldrum? Or is Linda McDonald notable because she is in the tribute bands The Iron Maidens and The Little Dolls? If those bands are notable on their own does that also now mean, as she has been part of/is part of "two or more independently notable ensembles", Wikipedia will soon have article on her other projects? "Crabby Patty (I’m So Unclear !)", "Unholy Pink" and "Valley Dolls"? Will the fact that Linda played with Carina Alfie now allow Carina to have a Wikipedia article as well? And the Federico Gironelli says she is an influence so does that make his article more legit even if she does not yet have an article? And what about Xavier Moyano whose article has a section about "Notable" performances that says "in 2009 he performed with Carina Alfie"? And the Dario Seixas article says that he, in 2006, "records female Argentinian guitar sensation Carina Alfie's album Electric Fuzz" and that "This album included Linda McDonald from Phantom Blue." Using the circular rationale Carina should have their own article. Again, not saying this is acceptable, just saying I think the wording is less clear now than it was before before. (For the record I think Phantom Blue was notable but all of these former member tribute band offshoots that have articles with each album having it's own article *and* each member having their own article is a bit too much. A good web PR machine at work is what I think is behind it. Is Kirsten Rosenberg really notable for being the singer in a tribute band or for being the co-owner "of Sticky Fingers, an all-vegan bakery in Washington, D.C. and an advocate for animal rights"?) I agree with what Christopher Connor suggests is a problem being a problem. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All this is really quite confusing and more complicated than I thought. For simple cases, it should be easy to determine if the other band member/band is independently notable. Say person A has been part of a fully notable band B, and A is also in band C, which has two band members--A and a fully notable person D. A and C would then fail criteria 6 because the other individual/band isn't independently notable (I hope I've got this right). But in more complicated scenarios, in which there's lots of people and bands and connections in between them, it can be difficult to determine whether anything is independently notable. And all this is beside the fact that the criteria allows articles to be created that fail the GNG conclusively. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So can you find any entity that conclusively fails the GNG--that is, we try but fail to find reliable sources--but yet would be allowable under criterion 6? If it's just a theoretical problem, that really limits the amount of fretting we need to do over it. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what I said above for some examples that clearly aren't "theoretical". Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humor me: pick one article, show me explicitly where the chain leads and explain why it's the wrong result. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on where you want to start the "notability" chain. You pick one and follow it per what I said above. Depending on where you start you may reach other articles I have not found yet. Is Meldrum the start? Is Phantom Blue the start? Is Linda McDonald the start? You decide. :) (This can become Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon too - except with "notable" musicians) Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. I've tagged these three for their obvious deficiencies: no reliable, third-party sources, for the most part. Want me to keep going? Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused at this point what you are wanting? Chris had a concern that the criteria can lead to things being circular, in which musicians and ensembles all support each other using this criteria. I agree and that one "source" is exactly that type of thing I felt they were getting at. It really can become Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon - that is why I said you can pick the starting point. Just keep clicking and see what you turn up. Is it Six degrees of Phantom Blue? If it is than, as I said, I personally feel that while Phantom Blue is notable the further away it gets from that band I start to wonder "Why? How?" I thought, from what you said, you felt/pondered "So if the person is in two notable bands, where are they going to be covered?" My question is "At what point does the "notability" wear off?" And at what point does every member of every following band stop being considered "notable"? In the past it somehow seemed more clear than it does now. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reply to the edit conflicted items. My slant is, and always has been, how much material is considered? In other words there may very well be sourced articles that say something such as "Person 54 used to play in Band C before they joined Band D" but is that alone enough to warrant notability? I feel "no it isn't" but before you say "No" consider this: I was in a discussion a few years ago about a small indy label that failed notability guidelines for businesses but it was argued that because one of the acts on the label was notable per this guideline than the label itself was notable. In all the research I did I found little that met the acceptable guidelines, I did find that the band was notable as an indy/underground band but I still feel the article was/is about a record label - not a band. What was presented? One indy act that had record reviews (the always mention the label) and an interview where the singer said something to the effect of "Yeah we have a single out a this label. The owner is really cool." In the same vein I don't feel an article on a musician or a band should be based on a passing mention in a live review or an album review. In these types of discussions I like to point out the Peter Criss was in several bands after he left KISS but they don't have their own articles, even though most of them were more than likely covered in the press to some degree. I also think there is a world of difference between musicians like Waddy Wachtel or Ricky Phillips and Cary The Label Guy or Matt Lee (musician) in terms of what is acceptable. I feel the examples given at Notability (people) - Notes work very well here. Just substitute the word/s "Album", "band", Singer", etc where appropriate. Number 4 - A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not. ; Number 6: A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. ; Number 7 - An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer. ; Number 17 - The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable. External arguments via a talk page or AFD debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid as the existence of the information on the article page itself. And beyond that I have suggested in the past that this guideline should fall into line with the wording on some of the other guidelines. Look at the intro to Wikipedia:Notability (books) and see how that is laid out. Compare that to this music guideline. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is a practical side to this criterion also. If Joe Blow is in the notable band The Rockers but he has no other claim to notability then we can redirect his name to The Rockers and anyone looking him up can read the only notable thing about him, being a Rocker. On the other hand, if he is also a member of the notable band The Rollers what do we do with him? One band means he's worthy of a redirect, two bands and now nothing? Someone who manages to be a part of multiple bands that have met our criteria of notability have done enough for at least a stub. —J04n(talk page) 01:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you speak of has happened. See Jack Off Jill, of which Robin Moulder was a member. At one time, because of her being in Jack Off Jill a stub was created for "TCR" and that was rolled into the Robin Molder article, based in part on the old wording of C6. Another similar thing happened when Gilby Clarke got into Guns N' Roses, up until that time he was just another local Hollywood musician that had been in a lot of bands. Up until that point he had minor success with Candy and than he had a lot more success, on the local Hollywood scene anyway, with a band called "Kill For Thrills". However that was rolled into the Early music career (1985-1991) section of his article. Candy appears to meet this criteria because of being on a major label, Kill for Thrills doesn't (didn't) because they were just another unsigned local Hollywood band. (As a related item there is Electric Angels, which, aside from being unsourced, I am not sure they really meet the notability requirements beyond a band that formed out of the ashes of Candy, released one album on Atlantic and, if you use the circular concept, they are notable because "The band split in April 1992 when Roxie returned to Los Angeles to become the guitarist for Alice Cooper". And if you go beyond that than the other former Candy members went on to form "The Loveless", and maybe they should have an article because they released one album that, according to the article "is well loved among fans of the power pop music genre.") Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that much of the press regarding musicians looks as if it were lazily drawn from a PR release. In short, it looks like hype. All positive, no negative. Aaronchall (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise, independent sources are more willing to offer criticism of music than the establishment will. Well followed independent blogs should be considered reliable sources for critical opinions regarding the content of music and other types of art. Aaronchall (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any guidelines about notability of independent record labels & companies. Can anyone point me in the right direction please? --Electronic Music (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC) WP:CORP seems to be the one for independent labels, is that correct? --Electronic Music (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the short answer is that we don't have any guidelines specific to record labels, although I believe we should. WP:CORP/WP:GNG is about all you can go by at the moment.--Michig (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No More Idols (AfD discussion)
• Hitmixes (AfD discussion)

Two albums (one an EP, technically). Two (presumably) notable artists. Two articles with cover art, release date, infobox, tracklisting, small amount of prose, and sources. One AFD discussion forming a consensus to delete "per WP:NALBUM" and one forming a consensus to keep "per WP:NALBUM". It might be worth thinking about why this is. Uncle G (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Different editors contributing to the discussions seems to be the main reason. Neither discussion shows much appreciation of this guideline. We can't force people to read and understand the guideline, or think for themselves for that matter. --Michig (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So they're both getting the criteria wrong? That's a surprising conclusion. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily getting it wrong, but I don't see much evidence of understanding the guideline, or that it is simply a guideline (that suggests likely notability for albums by notable artists, which is the case in both). This section has been hacked about with so much that it has become almost redundant to WP:GNG, without an awful lot of community involvement. The bottom line should always be the question of whether deleting the article will improve the encyclopedia, and I see little to suggest this is the case with either article, and little to suggest that this question has been considered by many of the people taking part in the discussion.--Michig (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Michael Lockwood (guitarist) notable by these criteria? As far as I can tell he isn't but I was hoping that someone more experienced with music notability could help here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person has notability as a result of coverage in major newspapers (multiple mentions in NYT) and is augmented by his celebrity marriage (which is not a "music criterion" for sure). General criteria apply where the specialized criteria (which are intended to provide notability to people who otherwise would not meet the general guidelines) fail to cover a person. Collect (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect I was asking for an expert opinion here. Can you please leave it be for someone who frequents this entry to answer? If the article goes to AfD then please by all means make your argument, but right now I just want to know if they are notable as a musician. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I have not even looked at the article but I can say if it presented correctly (Which, based on this thread, I take it is not) he 100% meets the criteria. He was in lions and Ghosts, who release an album on EMI. He then went on to join a band that was part of a label bidding war, but disbanded before they were officially signed. He played and recorded with Barron Jive and Syl Sylvain. He went solo for a bit playing acoustic shows before becoming a solid sideman touring with Susana Hoffs, Aimee Mann (Also acting as her music director) and then becoming Lisa Maria Presley's music director before they "fell in love", got married and had twins. He has played at the Grammy Awards and at the Academy awards and there is a lot of little side things going on in there as well - but certainly notable beyond being LMP's hubby. Having said all that I will now go check the article. EDIT: Doh - I forgot about some of those other tours, Fiona Apple of course.. But - Ok, having viewed the article it does need to be expanded but it does for sure, assert his notability. Problem is, as with so many of the Hollywood musicians of the 80's and 90's much of the coverage they received is not on the internet. Lions and Ghosts got a lot of press for example - I did a quick search and the issue of BAM they were on the cover of in 1987 is for sale at a ebay like website. They also had a song on the soundtrack to Modern Girls. Here is some info on Baron Jive, who at the time got a lot of press because of Lili Haydn and Phil Parlipiano, who was playing with Rod Stewart at the time. ANyhow - for sure Mike is notable enough to have an article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC

OK so can you explain what criteria he meets then? I'd like to know for next time something like this comes up. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how you want to look at things: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely not helpful. Before I asked the question I looked at those. I can't find any evidence of #1 (it requires he is the subject and not just trivially mentioned), #2 is something I'm not very adept at investigating but I'm assuming this doesn't mean being a studio musician or manager, but the primary recording artist, ditto for #3, for #4 I also could not find anything but again I'm not very adept at music research, for #5, as you pointed out yourself he only released 1 album on a major label, for #6 this is something I also don't understand ... what does it mean to be a member of an ensemble?, for #10 I am still assuming he needs to be primary recording artist but again have little knowledge of how to conduct the proper research and for #12 I certainly found nothing of that nature when I looked. Can you please explain a bit further why he meets at least one of those. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated - as with a lot of musicians who first started to, or did, get press during the 80's and 90's it is often hard to find informaiton on them solely via the internet. More so when you start off as one thing and end up as another, Mike started off being "notable" via Lions & Ghosts and than as a side player and now, for better or worse, tied to the coattails of Lisa Marie. But take number 5, for example, Lions & Ghosts released two albums, not one (my bad). He has also played on other albums - Fiona Apple, Lisa Marie, Carly Simon. As a songwriter you can check out some of his credits at ASCAP. I am not going to do all the research, you can start at his own history page and go from there if you want. That should at least help you to see he meets more than one of the criteria. As for the specific question regarding "this doesn't mean being a studio musician or manager, but the primary recording artist" - as I said "Depending on how you want to look at things." I think the article on Waddy Wachtel is an excellent article on one of the top studio/touring musicians out there. However I feel the Victor Indrizzo article is severely lacking as an article on one of the top studio touring musicians out there. (And as a reference take a look at a deletion discussion from 2009 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rojas. At the time, because this person was a background player on some tracks from a high selling album/s, and involved in another that was on a soundtrack, it was argues he more than met these criteria) As for Mike I can say there was a lot of press about him long before he met and married Lisa Marie but I certainly do not have every printed piece of info on him at hand. From the L.A Times here is one: Lions & Ghosts: Roar of Two Styles from 1987. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]