---

NSONGS is quite restrictive and paragraph one is contradictory as a single paragraph, I suspect a line-feed has been dropped somewhere along the way.

1. Add a line feed (new paragraph) in the first paragraph, these are two separate thoughts. Without the line-feed, the guidance infers that album reviews are not independent.
2. Add the Film qualifier to NSONGS and remove it from NALBUMS if necessary. Why should an Album inherit notability from a single song, when the song itself cannot have an article?
3. A professional review from an RS source, especially when the song is mentioned in prose should count for evidence of notability.
4. Note: I've added "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts" to Reference 1.

The improved section would read as follows:

Songs

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject^[1] of multiple, non-trivial^[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.^[3]

added line-feed and bolded text Coverage of a song in the context of an album review alone does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
4. add - copied directly from NALBUMS The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions.

• Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
• Note 2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed-on secondary content. Wikiversity and Wikibooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues for this type of content.

References

1. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment, "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts", and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.
2. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source.
3. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

There is an AfC discussion going on at Draft:Never Gonna Be the Same Again that might interest commentators -- (I have a COI -- friends on the song -- therefore AfC). Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Plenty of reads on the 13th, but no comments here. Implementing per WP:BOLD since there has been no objection. If there is a problem, it can be reverted and discussed here. 009o9 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to revert you because I don't think 2 days is quite enough time to think about the change. I am also concerned that this change is the result of a discussion about one song article, rather than a general overview of all songs. Shall we leave for, say, 7 clear days' before changing? FWIW I was still contemplating your proposals when you changed the guideline. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richhoncho, splitting that first paragraph has been bothering me for over a year (a different song) and allowing an album article to gain notability from a film theme song, when the song itself cannot seems ridiculous to me. Glad to see somebody is considering my proposal. Seven days works for me, but I would prefer a consensus. Wondering where everybody has been since the holidays? Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I created the song article that is being discussed on November 12, 2013. This discussion is about defects in the Guideline and I feel that the article (Draft:Never Gonna Be the Same Again) is a good article to demonstrate the defects in NSONGS. There is no hurry to get the song article published and about 50% of the articles about the film include the theme song (and a few others) as a notable topic(s). Fixing the Guideline will probably cause the song article to be published, but really only because we would be eliminating loopholes (used by AfDers) -- the topic is notable and there is enough coverage for an interesting article (more than a stub). Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the proposed changes but was surprised that it was pushed into the guideline without acceptance. I certainly don't think the change is needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Walter Görlitz The squeaky wheel get the oil and after two days, I figured I would get a response with a BOLD edit, fully expecting it to be reverted as per this discussion.

Perhaps you can explain how an Album WP:INHERITs notability from a song? Further, why should an independent RS album review should be lumped together (same paragraph) with non-independent sources? In this case, the author/reviewer has clearly noted the song in his prose, i.e., "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts". [1] In the AfC discussion, the reviewer is claiming that reviews are not independent RS, I contend that the guidance is missing a paragraph break, and misinterpreted due to this typo. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The third point is quite problematic. "in a medium that is notable"? That would contradict WP:INHERENT. I also don't understand why WP:BLP1E would be linked. Those are policies about people, not songs. Mkdw^talk 02:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mkdw: Point #4 is what I believe you are speaking to, and it is copied directly from WP:NALBUMS. The relevant guidance in WP:BLP1E is The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. An album or single release could be considered an event. If the song has continuing exposure in notable mediums, the recording has additional evidence that it is notable. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but BLP1E is still not about events. It's about people known for one event. I assume NALBUMS is trying to draw a parallel to albums know for one event, but we should just use WP:EVENTS. In any case, this is perhaps a stronger argument that NALBUMS needs it removed, but likewise it shouldn't be included in new policy or guidelines either. Mkdw^talk 21:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seeking wider consensus, I've tracked down the 2013 RfC, regarding the change to the (almost?) current reading of NSONGS. Since they were interested participants in the RfC I am pinging -- I think I have them all. User:Gongshow, User:J04n, Kww, User:Aircorn, User:J04n, User:Mkdw, User:Lukeno94, User:Calvin999, User:Ritchie333, User:Richhoncho, User:Lil-unique1, User:78.26, User:BlueMoonset, User:Sionk, User:Lawrencekhoo, User:CycloneGU, User:Cncmaster, User:Matticusmadness, User:BlueMoonset, User:Shadowjams Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me touch on what I believe I'm seeing as the matter here.

Reviews are not independent: Weeeell, that's a grey area really, and I'd suggest that the reviewers are checked for their own notability and any links to the subject, if there's none, what's the problem?

Album Inherits Notability: I don't really agree. While the album could be mentioned in the song's article, unless the album can stand on its own two feet, let it have passing mentions, if the album has, say, two or three (at least) article level songs, then I'd consider looking at if the album can stand on its own article.

Line Feed: Whatever that is, if the first two points kinda conflict with each other, one or the other needs a reword really, not two separate paragraphs.

Did I miss anything? I kinda skimmed this a bit. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 12:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Matticusmadness The NSONGS guidance, as it currently reads, is routinely interpreted to decline song/single articles in favor of album articles in Articles for Creation. Ultimately, this inheritance is currently local-policy caused by the defect(s) in NSONGS.

1. Even though you've just skimmed the proposal, it appears that you agree with me -- that the current guidelines are backwards and the album should have to earn it's notability, not inherit it from one notable song.
2. In addition to breaking the poorly composed paragraph into two paragraphs, I've added the word alone. I believe these two additions sufficiently clarify the guidance on album reviews and you seem to agree with the proposal on this point also. (P.S. A Line feed is an ASCII character = old-school for print a blank line.)

Thanks for your input, Cheers!009o9 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm mostly thinking out loud here, this is purely for discussion. I'm fine with the line feed addition. Regarding "medium", when I hear that term, as a music collector I think of "medium" in terms of shellac, vinyl, cassette-tape, wax cylinder, etc, so is there a better nomenclature? I'm also not sure that being the theme of a network show strongly implies notability. Think of some mid 1970s show that was cancelled after 7 episodes. The article would probably never develop beyond The "Theme from 'Glark'" was the theme song from the television show 'Glark'. I'm still thinking about the compilation album criteria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User talk:78.26 Yes, like I said, that passage was copy pasted from WP:NALBUMS, and the qualifier references BIO regarding the longevity of the notability. I believe that the term "medium" is the singular form of "media," so I'm not sure if we will be able to find more concise nomenclature that encompasses all presentation platforms. (I.e., to include non-hard copy medium like airwaves, radio, digital etc.) Finally, I think the "stub article should not be created" caveat/para covers the Theme from Glark example. Cheers!009o9 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the squeaky wheel may get the grease, that does not apply to modifying guidelines. All of the changes I have made to the guideline have only been done after discussion and WP:CONSENSUS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick read of WP:CONACHIEVE reveals: Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

Here is WP:CONLIMITED which addresses guidelines and other advice pages: As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny.

I discussed these (minor) changes on the talk page two days before making the change, there were plenty of views of the talk page on the 13th?, without comment, so I went BOLD and treated it as a non-controversial edit. I also made a prior notification (on the talk page) that I fully expected my edit to be reverted. Finally, I've tracked down the original RfC from three years ago and invited all of those participants to to discuss here.

So is your only objection to the proposal that my edit did not follow your interpretation of WP:CONSENSUS? Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this point should be collapsed and it's a disservice to the other editor you're supposed to be working with to call their comment "off-topic". Especially when you mentioned WP:BOLD and implementing the changes back of a lack of objection above. They're likely responding to how this change was proposed and attempted to be implemented earlier and wanting to ensure you address these concerns in your proposal process. To give you a sense of the process for a major guideline change, I made a recommendation to NSONG some time ago and it took weeks upon weeks of consensus gathering. I do not believe due diligence was served by waiting a mere two days before deciding WP:BOLD was going to apply here -- especially when it was to resolve an AFC issue you were having. The change needs to reflect current community practices and the only way you'll obtain that is to approach the community in a broad process for input. Mkdw^talk 20:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mkdw I collapsed section because this is the second time (see above) this editor has complained about my BOLD edit which is within the WP:CONSENSUS guideline. Neither comment has been on topic, with the exception of an unsupported preference in the first. Additionally, the Bold Edit conversation could have been continued under the first thread and my response. No reason to start another top level discussion.

I've explained my logic twice now, turning this discussion into a wall of text over a gentle prod to get the discussion started is really unnecessary. I realize these things take time, but 30 some editors read the talk page on the 13th without the decency of just posting an Oppose. The sooner this gets started the sooner it will be finished. I've changed the heading to be more descriptive. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the collapse this part of the discussion. WP:TPOC explicitly states, "editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates — these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors". I've stated my objection above when I said I don't think it should be collapsed, and you've actually now gone ahead and moved my comment into it. If an uninvolved party feels the need to moderate and refactor this discussion with the use of those templates, that can happen, but it shouldn't be for you to make this call especially when the comment is directed at you. Mkdw^talk 21:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The addition from NALBUMS is inappropriate. An album is a collection that is available collectively, whereas the medium of a song could just be unrecorded performances. There were songs long before audio recording! This is irrespective of any further comments I might make. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not convinced of Point 4 in its entirely. Especially the line "performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." appears vague to me. That implies that if a song is performed on a late-night talk show, it could be notable. The note on a redirect after it is perhaps not strong enough. I would question its inclusion at all.Karst (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Karst If that is the case, then we have exposed a problem in NALBUMS where the content is copied from. The only place I can think of where the entire album would be aired on television is a PBS feature, which are generally produced in cooperation with the artist, so the independence of the source would come into question. We are very unlikely to hear an album on the Tonight Show. I don't understand @Richhoncho's comment. A song may or may not be a part of a collection, a lot of singles today are simply one or more versions (remixes) of the same song. The passage from NALBUMS does not preclude notable unrecorded songs from inclusion, it merely states that the rotation or feature may be evidence of notability, but this should not be the only claim.

Anyway, if the passage is a problem in NSONGS then it is a bigger problem in NALBUMS, an album is a collection of recordings, not "The recording". An album is highly unlikely to be theme song, an album is generally 40 minutes / 10 tracks of music. Cheers!009o9 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I am merely refusing to equate a "song article" with a "record" which is correct. A song can and often exists without recording, whereas the essence of a record album is a collection of different songs purchased as one item, Often with a record company in cooperation with the artist (!), which is why it is in NALBUMS. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Album features on VH1 for instance (for instance Pink Floyd: Behind the Wall) would apply in that context. But all that is a different discussion that should be on WP:NALBUMS. I'm still not convinced that #4 clarifies anything in relation to WP:NSONGS. Karst (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The passage does not contain the word "record", nor does it contain the term "record" in the context of the old 12 vinyl media as slang. Even so, a record in that context, contains one or more recordings, which is the term used in the passage. Similarly, when music went to cassette, they were called tapes and CDROMS are called discs. The passage addresses "The recording" which was a theme song or featured in a film or television performance. The passage is obviously addressing a song, not an album/vinyl record. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It opens with the words, "The recording was performed in a medium that is notable..." My bold. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a recording is a transaction within a record (ledger), this accounting terminology goes back hundreds of years. "The recording" is obviously the song. Further, recorded music dates back to the middle-ages, the medium being notation on paper. pottery or even stone. The term recording is not specific with regards to the media, only that it has been recorded. Chers!009o9 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if I have got it wrong, then so will many other readers who will not think it is a ledger entry. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be clearer like this? The song was broadcast in a medium that is notable... Cheers1 009o9 (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to save a paragraph that both Karst and I feel should not be added. Perhaps wait and see if other editors have a different opinion. FWIW "Broadcast" is no better. All that matters is the song is performed and is notable with reliable sources, therefore this addition (which is to signify what is an album) is not appropriate for individual songs. As such, it adds nothing to guideline, but confusion. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else is having a problem with it and Karst's reservation is understandable. At the very least, an official release, a mention in the prose of an RS review and being used as a theme song for a popular film or television show, should be concrete evidence that the song is notable. This needs to be concisely spelled out for the crew at AfC and AfD. Finally, can you please point out the verbiage in #4 that says the passage has anything to do with an album? Sans being placed in NALBUMS for some inexplicable reason? 009o9 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

. This is already covered. It says quite clearly that RS must be about the subject, not a mention in an article about something else, WP:GNG makes the Three Blind Mice (band) reference. Your Article 4 succeeds only in muddying those waters. Also, your argument is about article namespace and not content at Wikipedia. Separating non-notable theme songs from popular shows is not doing any reader any favours, but merging with the band, album, discography, or film/TV it comes from could be helpful. "Nobody is having problem with it" is disengenious. See above. Now wait and see what others might say. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how is the "Any of the following factors ..." being used? If the "subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works" requirement still has to be met, what difference does it make? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:Ojorojo: I believe that this was part of the original RfC that instituted substantial changes. RfC 009o9 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading the RfC (thanks for the link) correctly, the three existing "factors" (charts, awards, covers) do not expand, define, or clarify notability requirements. According to Gongshow's statement under "Support 1. Support", "song-specific criteria (e.g., charts, awards, covers) ["factors"] are helpful guides that 'suggest that a song or single may be notable'". So it seems they are little more than examples, because the RfC added the qualifier "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria", which includes "subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works". We could come up with a long list of "helpful guides that suggest", but it wouldn't make any change to the notability requirement. "Sold more than a million copies of sheet music", "recorded in more than 20 languages", etc. don't mean anything if the songs aren't the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ojorojo Yes, it seems like a lot of projects would like to provide a required number of references and/or limit templates only to specific artists etc., but I'm pretty sure that this runs afoul of WP:ADVICEPAGE and WP:OWN. I think that NSONGS is pretty fair with the clarifications proposed here, the problem with AfC and AfD is that currently, RS reviews and televised music are not considered evidence of notability for the actual song, but allowed for the album. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richhoncho: Articles have topics and subtopics, article titles and other sentences have (a) subject.[2] this error in terminology is pervasive throughout the Notability guidelines. In the first bullet of the WP:GNG we have: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. (Emphasis mine) For the "Three Blind Mice" example, the band in not notable as this is a trivial mention, but if you add the second sentence, the "mention" passes WP:ANALYSIS (the author's "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts")...

• In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice. He still plays a mean and serious saxophone.[3]

Now, we have a non-trivial secondary source, the author has injected analysis, noting that Bill Clinton is still a serious saxophone player. This alone does not make Clinton a notable saxophone player, but in combination with national appearances and other writings it does make him a notable musician/sax player.

Futher, project pages advice/guidelines pages, such as this one, must take special care to conform with site-wide guidelines and policies WP:ADVICEPAGE. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since we are having a difference of opinion proposed item #4 (copied directly from NALBUMS), I decided to see who added the film and television item to NALBUMS. DIFF The edit summary is "(→‎Recordings{{Anchor|Albums}}: adding per talk page.)" I'm searching the Talk page archives for "The recording was performed in a media that is notable" and "The recording was performed" without result. Even searching "November 2014" talk archives, I'm honestly not finding the consensus discussion that compelled User:Walter Görlitz to make such a major edit.

It appears that the verbiage has been in the "Musicians and ensembles" section since the guideline was drafted in 2006 Here is a very early DIFF and this placement seems valid. I still have no idea why an album would inherit notability from a theme song. The song, "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" was probably (re)released on 10 albums. Should we create 10 album articles because the song is notable, or one song/single article and maintain the additional releases and notable cover-versions within the song article? Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there was an RFC at Template talk:Track listing/Archive_15. Mkdw^talk 22:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, nothing about "film" or "television" ("tele") mentioned in that RfC. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment continued The disconnect here is that WP:NALBUMS shorcut is not in the "Albums" subsection, this is quite misleading. NALBUMS is located in the parent section "Recordings". Additionally, the (root level) "Songs" section (aka WP:SONGS), is outside of the "Recordings" section with nothing to indicate (like a See Also #Recordings) that the "Recordings" section also applies to NSONGS. (AfC and AfD reviewers simply look at NSONGS, without considering the other seven line-items in the "Recordings" section.)

NALBUMS is an extremely poor choice for a shortcut to "Recordings" and should probably be moved to the albums section. The "Songs" section, if it was created for un-recorded songs, no longer represents that, and it looks like the entire guideline should be reworked for section placement and content. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: since a !vote is desired, and I am definitely not in favor of adding the proposed fourth point into the list of factors that suggest a song may be notable (the "medium that is notable" one), I thought I'd add this here. I'm dubious about the other three changes as well, including the new addition to reference 1; under the circumstances, I'll oppose the whole set. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueMoonset If you read the section, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings, from the beginning, you will find that Songs are already covered by #4 and several others. The section reads "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings..." Just a few hours ago, I realized that NSONGS is completely extraneous and probably should have never been created (separately from the Recordings section anyway). It only confuses the legacy guidance provided in the Recordings section that already addresses singles and other recordings. Additionally, if you look at the definition of Non-trivial in reference 2, you'll see that my addition to reference 1 clarifies that the author of the referenced work must provide some type of thoughtful input about the song. This is taken from the definition of what is required to constitute a secondary source: It [a secondary source] contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources WP:ANALYSIS. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I very much doubt you're going to get buy-in on eliminating NSONGS, perhaps because you haven't thought out all the angles yet, but you could always start a new topic with that proposal. Since you do believe NSONGS is extraneous then there's no point in pursuing any changes to it, so you might as well close off this discussion. Best of luck. As a footnote, you don't seem to have considered that fact that not every song would be a single or from an album. There's a reason it's NSONGS and not NSINGLES. (Number 3 is clearly more about songs than about singles.) Finally, why do you always assume people have not previously read the things you point them to? Just because we may not agree does not mean we are doing so from ignorance. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueMoonset

• By extraneous, I mean "separate from the object to which it is attached." Is this the way you understood it?
• Regarding ignorance: The Wikipedia changes from day to day, I've found several guidelines that have substantially changed since I began editing and I recall I've read them, but I don't recall if that was a quick look-up or a detailed read. Then there is the difference in the context of word meanings -- such as extraneous. It was User:Richhoncho who took a very narrow definition of the word "record" in this discussion. He was reading "record" in the context of a vinyl LP is slang (record album). It appears that it took 800 words to get him to realize this mistake. There are tons of word misinterpretations throughout the community. For instance, NSONGS uses the word "subject" and the GNG uses the word "topic." This ambiguity leads many reviewers to believe that if the topic is not in the title, the reference can't be used for notability. "Significant coverage" and "Non-trivial" are also terms that are misinterpreted in notability discussions. (Perhaps purposefully/belligerently to win the debate?)
• Regarding this proposal: Yes, I will be closing this discussion directly, in favor of a merge RfC to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Singles and songs. There is good and usable content in NSONGS, but not as a stand alone section IMHO. There are some other defects in the guideline that are also very confusing, like NALBUMS not being in the Albums section. You can see what I will be proposing here User:009o9/Draft NSONGS RFC. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]