• Archive 1 — Top 100 hits, notability for performers, albums, size of countries, genres, record labels, college groups, indie groups
• Archive 2
• Archive 3 (Feb -> June 2006)
• Archive 4 (July 2006 -> Dec 2006)
• Archive 5 (Jan 2007 - April 2007)
• Archive 6 (May 2007 - December 2007

Would the national level of a junior competition be a "major" musical competition? Question is specifically in regard to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007, where the articles on all the national winners were nominated for speedy deletion: Lisa, Amy & Shelley, Trust (2007 band), Alexandra Golovchenko, 4Kids (group), Made In Greece. Articles from 2006 national winners include Andrey Kunets. The international winners seem notable enough, and Thor Salden went on to a more clear independent fame. What do others think? Gimmetrow 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Salden seems to have charted so thats his notability. Andrey Kunets, however, doesnt seem to be notable. the guide says has won or placed in a major music competition. If they havent won or placed in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007 then i dont think they can claim notability. The best bet would be to see if you can find some reliable articles on them if there arent any they probably arent notable enough for an article as there wouldnt be enough source to make the article any more than a stub. Non-notability is not a valid reason for a speedy delete request. It could only be done by proposed deletion --Neon white (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these groups have won their national junior competition. My question is whether a national junior competition is a "major" competition. Apparently a few admins don't consider winning a national junior competition even a *claim* to notability. Another factor is that many of these groups will never do anything else, either because they don't succeed or because they split up. Personally, I would merge the brief descriptions to the article on the international contest, and only split out ones who become independently notable. Gimmetrow 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed it but I do not see DJs in this guide. Do they fall here or under WP:Bio? Do we need specific criteria on them? Gtstricky (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they might be governed by WP:Music#Others in terms of criterion #5. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be cosidered under 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' --Neon white (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would contestants for an upcoming musical competition be notable? Say, the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007?-Carados (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. They are not just contestants. Gimmetrow 22:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to create a series of articles pertaining to Texas musician Trent Summar, and the two bands that he is/was members of (Hank Flamingo and Trent Summar & The New Row Mob). However, because all three are on the fringe of passing WP:MUSIC, and because sources are scant, I'm not certain if I should make a separate page for each act, or do some combining. Here are the facts:

• Trent Summar meets criterion #1 for composers and lyricists, as he co-wrote a single for Jack Ingram and an album track for Billy Currington.
• Trent Summar & The New Row Mob meet criterion #2 for musicians and ensembles, as they entered the U.S. country music charts in 2000 (albeit with a single that peaked at #74). They also seem to meet criterion #5, as two of their albums were on marginally notable labels: VFR (a label that, while very short-lived, was also home to Mark McGuinn and Hometown News) and Palo Duro Records.
• Hank Flamingo, then, would meet criterion #6, as Summar was a former member of it back in the 1990s. They recorded only one album (although it was on a major label), and never charted. The only reliable source I can find for the band per se is their bio on All Music Guide.

I would like to know what anyone else thinks is the best option for handling these three pages. So far, I'm thinking that the best option would be to make Hank Flamingo a redirect to Trent Summar and make a separate entry for Trent Summar & The New Row Mob, but I'd like to hear some feedback from other users regarding how to handle these three pages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TenPoundHammer. Your approach sounds plausible to me. Alternatively, if you find there's not enough sourcing to sustain the three, you might want to make one page for Trent Summar & The New Row Mob and redirect both of the other articles to it. With Trent Summar being bandleader, I think that approach would be sensible, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:... 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition."

• Two major problems:
  • 1) What is a major music competition? How is it defined?
  • 2) What does "placed" mean? 2nd? 3rd? 8th? 137th? Very unclear. Especially on such articles as minor American Idol or X Factor contestants. (Are these even major music competitions?)
• BLACKKITE 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Australian Idol, we generally just have winner/runner up getting their own article, and anyone who releases after the show has to garnish notability through other means (releases on notable record label, reliable sources discussing them specifically (not discussing the contest), etc.). But I'm not sure what the deal is in other cases. And I would consider Aus Idol to be a "major" competition. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree that Aus Idol is (and the two that I mentioned too). But then again it's difficult to draw a bright line at a certain point. BLACKKITE 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say we could certainly draw a line with Idol/X Factor competitions - preferably the line I noted above. With other competitions I don't know. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at WP:IDOL is that the finalists for each country's idol get articles, and the others are redirected to the season (or series) if they aren't famous for some other reason. I would say typically only a winner or runner-up in a music competition could use the criterion here. As for what the major music competitions are, though, is hard to brightline. I would say anything at a national or international level would be enough of a claim to keep the article from speedy deletion, but it may need discussion at afd to decide if the competition were significant enough. A good rule of thumb, that I often think of with the 2 or more albums rule, is whether the competition is notable in its own right, i.e. whether it does (or should) have its own article. Of course that just pushes the discussion to a different article, but you can consider how widely-reported it is (in reliable sources) and so forth. Rigadoun (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if the competition isn't notable, you'll have a tough case trying to assert criterion 9 on such a case. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Could we perhaps be more specific with this? Spin (radio) defines light rotation as 5-15 times a week and medium and heavy as progressively more (yet it isn't sourced). It think we should either specify using that article's criteria or our own what level of rotation is adequate. Personally I think if a song has never hit at least medium rotation (10-25 plays/week, then its notability could still be questionable, as with independent artists that make a release, sure it makes it to the radio, but it never really gets much in the way of listenership(made up word?).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you by any chance have examples of a song that has hit light rotation that isn't notable? Examples make discussions easier. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I would get an example of a specific song. After all, if they're non-notable, even in light rotation, why would I or anyone else really bother taking note of them? I do have one possible example from a previous deletion discussion that I'll try to look up.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original afd where this occurred to me:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuphoriaX. Its not major but the person who created the article seemed to support the idea that the band had received light rotation, but given that this page never specifies what amount of play qualifies as "rotation" in the first place its hard to say. Also a lot of radio stations and networks have something akin to a "local band hour" or something similar, and it might be a good idea to be specific about whether or not this is included. Personally I think the spirit of the guideline is that these things are not qualifiers for notability, but that it is sufficiently ambiguous to lead to unnecessary disputes/confusion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though WP:MUSIC states that "A musician or ensemble IS notable if it meets ANY ONE of the following criteria" In my opinion, a claim of notability based only on one single guideline as ambiguous as # 11 would be hard to support if the subject does not meet or at least half way meet any other criteria. The truth is, it would be unlikely, not impossible, but unlikely for an artist who has never had any press coverage, never been on a national tour, and/or never released a record on a major/notable indie label to end up in national rotation on a major network. In other words, if an artist is getting national radio play, chances are they're already notable for some other reason.

As for the question "what qualifies as national rotation?". This would obviously cover the network approved play lists that are transmitted to the affiliate stations from the corporate offices of the major networks. I'm not sure however that this includes things like syndicated programs and local broadcasts that are produced independent of the networks. Such programs are generally scheduled by the program managers of the individual stations and often target specialized markets, demographics, or genres outside of the major networks regular audience. Thoughts? Ky Music Nerd (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD discussion that was closed as a no consensus brings up a question about what qualifies as a "national music chart." In this case, a listing on an iTunes chart was, according to the [admin], one of the reasons for the no-consensus. (For the record, I mildly disagree with the close, as by numbers the debate was 9-3 for deletion, but not enough to contest it vigorously.)

I'd like to know what the view of such charts based on individual websites or sales outlets such as iTunes - are they considered "national music charts" for the consideration of WP:MUSIC? Personally, I feel that it should be a chart that's put out by a recognized independent publication like Billboard, as nobody's really sure what the reasoning for the chart numbers expressed by something that makes its money by selling said music might be, in my opinion. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed - I don't believe that should be counted as a national music chart (especially as it's a specialist chart) and that AfD should really have been closed as Delete. We've had this situation come up before where bands/songs have been claimed as notable through appearing in such niche charts as Christian Rock or Drum'n'Bass. BLACKKITE 09:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume a national chart would refer to a national singles chart not a genre chart or any website sales chart. If itunes' charts are allowed then supposedly we would have to allow any online sales chart. --neonwhite user page talk 18:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any criterion listed in the notability guidelines means "If X happened to subject Y, we assume that Y has been covered by enough independent sources for us to write an article. Clearly in this case the band has not been covered by independent sources, so the assumption doesn't hold. Btw, the chart in question was the iTunes Dance subchart, not the overall iTunes chart. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any reliable record of historical placings on the iTunes charts? I found current top 10s by country, both for sales in general and for specific genres, but I can't find any way to verifiably claim that "song x reach #y on the iTunes deathgrindcore charts in 2006," for instance. This would make it hard to use those charts as evidence of notability. --Stormie (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we further define what non-trivial in relation to non-trivial published sources. Obviously what is considered trivial is subjective so i think it would be a good idea to specify a little. Are we talking the length of an article? what is contained in the article? Does it have to be a featured on the subject? --neonwhite user page talk 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe non-trivial has to do with the relative importance of the mention in the published source. There's a footnote exemplifying it at WP:N, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current criteria is that an international tour reported in a reliable source establishes band notability. However, some non-notable weekend cover bands, junior high school marching bands, and other non-notable bands probably meet this. This Rfc is to discuss refining the criteria to make it less inclusive. 20:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing earlier, and I think this criteria needs to be tightened up a little bit. Perhaps if attendance / sponsorship and so on is taken into account here it would make for a more concrete qualifier. As it stands right now, this is subject to a lot of interpretation. For example, it is MUCH easier to tour internationally in Europe than in The United States, Canada, and Australia, simply for geographical reasons. Also, a band with sufficiently wealthy members could fund an international "tour" much the same way a group of people would go on vacation together, and it says nothing of whether anyone actually bothered to listen to them or if they were received well.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the tour has to be covered in reliable secondary sources which cuts out alot of non-notable tours. --neonwhite user page talk 22:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Reliable newspapers will often have articles or blurbs on local music scenes. CM (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local music scenes aren't national or international tours. If they have coverage that would make them notable. --neonwhite user page talk 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-notable band meets a notability criteria, they are, by definition, notable. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your statement is tautologically true. I just restated the Rfc to make the point of the Rfc more clear. The point is to discuss whether or not the criteria is too inclusive. CM (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DHMO, That seems like an incidence of doublespeak to me. Wikipedia's guideline is really more of defining what "degree" of notability something has. Personally I would recommend assessing it as when someone refers something as "non-notable" it is more or less a colloquial representation of "not notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia."--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I misunderstood the original request. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strike criteria Strike the criteria. 4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources. It is not necessary. The other criteria are completely sufficient. CM (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...suggest we let some other people discuss this too? So far (as far as I can see) nobody has supported striking, etc. Personally, I don't think the criteria is too inclusive, as it's covered by the reliable sources quota. I wouldn't object to a number (eg. 2 reliable sources) and the requirement that the band/musician is specifically covered, but I think the criteria should be kept. In any case, I reverted you on the main page until we get more discussion. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. At least one user is ignoring the reliable sources when it comes to speedy deletes, though.[1][2] Of course, a speedy delete is something different than an Afd, and this user might have just been wrong. CM (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD criteria is far more lenient than notability. It only asks that there is any assertion (rather than a sufficient assertion). 2 albums and a tour is an assertion of notability, not necessarily enough for AfD (per this policy, although I think it is) but enough for CSD. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i support adding 'non-trivial' as a quantifier to the reports. I do agree that it shouldnt include minor mentions such as a supporting act getting a brief mention in an article about the headlining act. --neonwhite user page talk 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, independent specific (non trivial) coverage sounds good. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can go along with this. Who will make the change? CM (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Don't remove this. A national tour is unquestionably an indicator of notability. Should it be automatic that national tour=inclusion? Probably not, but removing it altogether is not the right approach. Music has benefited on Wikipedia by having one of the more liberal and objective notability categories. There's no reason to start hacking away at it haphazardly. Torc2 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• add "non-trivial" to the criteria. Something like: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Dlabtot (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• add "non-trivial" to the criteria, as per Dlabtot. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change made. [3] Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is really bad. What is "non-trivial" coverage? What coverage is needed for a tour aside from dates and locations? Would local coverage of one date of a national tour be sufficient? How about local coverage in several cities? This needs to be discussed more before the change is made. Torc2 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is non-trivial and trivial is largely decided on a case by case basis. Guidelines can't cover ever situation. --neonwhite user page talk 19:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This change makes it so it doesn't cover most situations. The question stands: if there's an ad in a San Francisco paper that says Band X is playing at the Fillmore on May 10th, one in a Seattle paper that says they're playing the Crocodile on May 12th, and so on, does that qualify? It should. Torc2 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it should be removed, it's unecessary. If a band is the subject of reliable independant articles then they are notable. --neonwhite user page talk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you got that out of what I wrote. The band is the subject of independent coverage, not "articles". The fact the coverage isn't in full-length articles is irrelevant; that level independent coverage is what is appropriate for all parties concerned and sufficient for notability purposes. Torc2 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with this criteria is what is a national tour? How many dates/performances make it a tour? How far do you have to go for it not to be a local tour. Should tours like Lollapalooza count? Are we to rely on a secondary source describing the tour as a national tour for all these points? --neonwhite user page talk 03:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• May as well get rid of it. If the band is genuinely notable, sources will exist. If no one's written about them, nothing else (toured this, won some award that), makes a bit of difference. Enough secondary sourcing is present to write an article, or not. (I have no objection to presenting guidelines as to when a search for sourcing is more likely to prove fruitful, but only if it's made clear that if it does not the subject is still not notable—because it hasn't been noted. That's really all it comes down to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, if reliable sources exist that cite a national tour wouldn't that qualify an artist under the 1st criteria anyway? --neonwhite user page talk 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, and that's why I don't like the sub-guidelines. If something mentions in passing that Band X toured, and that's the only independent material available, Band X is not notable. If there's substantial material available on Band X in independent and reliable sources, an article is justified. While it may seem counterintuitive, notability has nothing to do with importance or significance or accomplishments. Notability is verifiable. It is verified by having been noted by independent and reliable sources and they having written significant quantities of material, not something else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of music is different to general notability guidelines, hence the seperate, it was obviously decided by consensus that criteria for music needed to be more inclusive. --neonwhite user page talk 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Band X is playing mid-sized venues (say, 250+ capacity) nationwide, they're sufficiently notable regardless of the amount of material written in papers about the dates. The host venue is an independent body; that notability requirement is satisfied by the host venue believing the band is notable to host them and not having the band play tiny 50-person bars, and by local papers listing the concert in their schedules; that's really all the information necessary. Torc2 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that's rubbish. Notability is based on verifiable sources. Advertising is not a criteria for notability as it is self-published. As the policy says 'anyone can pay to have a book published', in the same way 'anyone can pay to go on tour and pay to have it advertised' but if no-one goes or cares much about it, it's not noteworthy. --neonwhite user page talk 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bands themselves do not published the ads; they are independent of the primary subject. Anybody can go on tour, but not anybody can be booked into multiple large venues across the country. Torc2 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can finance their own tour. Advertising and promotional material is self-published and not an acceptable source for notability. Self-published doesnt necessarily mean that the artist themselves is involved in the publishing, it just means it's not second party or independent. --neonwhite user page talk 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financing your own tour is not the same as getting booked into a decent-sized venue. Listing events in a calendar is not advertising and is not self-publishing; it's an independent body (a paper or magazine) publishing information about another independent body (a venue) hosting the subject. That's short coverage, but it's all the coverage the event needs, and should not be dismissed as "trivial". If the band was not notable, they would not play major venues and the dates would be ignored by the press. I've seen enough shows at 50-seat venues to know they're not listed on most papers' event calendars. Torc2 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financing your own tour can meen anything, if you have enough money, you can play anywhere you want. An advert is self published and can never be a valid source for notability. Please see the WP:N policy, specifically the part on being "Independent of the subject" which includes "self-publicity and advertising". Publicity and advertising is paid for, anyone can do, it doesnt make you notable. Notability stems from journalists and editors considering you are important enough to publish. The size of venue is irrelevant is the media do not consider it notable enough to print. --neonwhite user page talk 18:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No band has that kind of money, and it's an unrealistic argument. Bands that tour nationally don't rent large venues from the owners, they make agreements with the owners to play there. Can you find any source that argues otherwise? That bands rent halls out on nationwide tours and hope they break even? It doesn't happen that way. Also, calendars of evens are not ads and are independent coverage. Torc2 (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have knowledge of the amount money every band has? There have certainly been bands created by persons wealthy enough to potentially finance their own tours personally. You pay to use a vanue usually through a third party such as a promoter, they don't invite you to play there based on how notable they think you are, unless it's a festival, those are usual done by invite. I repeat "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc Please read the guidelines, lists of dates are clearly promotional material and therefore not independant and cannot be used as evidence of notability --neonwhite user page talk 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Is it remotely possible that somebody could finance their own cross-country tour at known and expected great financial loss? Sure. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this has actually occurred or is standard practice for more than a fraction of a percent of national tours? Go ahead and provide it. More than likely, if such evidence is presented, it would make the band that did that ineligible under this rule, but it's exceptionally, painfully unlikely that this affects any of the bands we've admitted using this standard. And I don't know how to say this any more clearly: a local paper printing a calendar of upcoming events is not advertising. It is not promotional material any more than a calendar saying yesterday was Valentine's day is promoting Hallmark. It is not self-publicity. It is not advertising. It is not self-published material by the subject (which is the band, not the venue). It is not an autobiography. It is not a press release. It is nothing remotely published by the band itself. It is information published by a third party independent of both the band and the venue about upcoming events that is provided for no other reason than the paper's belief that their readers might be interested in knowing the event is occurring. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't remotely possible, it's possible and been done, otherwise notable artists have funded their own tours. So an artist who isnt notable could easily do the same. A list of dates is advertising, it is created by the subject to advertise the event and for no other reason. Valentine's day is a religious holiday it is not a commercial event. Please cease these pointless arguements and false analogies. The guidelines are quite clear that adveristing and promotional meteral is not independent of the subject. I think you are being incredibly niave in thinking that events are published in a newspaper because an editor thinks they might be of interest. This is ludicrous. They are printed at the request of the artist, if they didnt request it, it wouldn't be there. --neonwhite user page talk 18:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being uncivil and grossly overstating how often bands rent out halls instead of being booked into them. This is what a booking contract looks like; if a promoter doesn't believe a band will be popular enough to make the venue money, they will not sign the contract. Being booked us not remotely the same as renting out the venue as a private event and charging admission. Do you run a venue? Have you toured? Or even read a book about touring? Do you have an evidence whatsoever that bands renting out venues themselves occurs regularly enough to disregard this notability criterion? Can you name even ten bands who weren't already popular that have done this for an entire nationwide tour? Can you name a single band that has been accepted into Wikipedia via this criteria who actually rented large venues themselves instead of getting booked into them? Valentine's day is religious? OK, fine, substitute Secretary's Day - the point is the same. You are arguing that information about events published without compensation by an independent third party is "advertising", and you're calling me naive? Do you have any evidence that supports the assertion a band personally asks a local paper to print a calendar of events for an entire venue? Do you believe that if a band doesn't personally call the paper and ask to be included in the calender of events, it doesn't happen? Or that any press release issued will automatically be published by the local papers? Tone it down and provide support for your assertions. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contracts have nothing to do with a venue thinking a band is popular. A promoter organises a tour, it is up to them to decide whether an act can make them money, the venue has no input in this, they just exist to be hired by the promoter. The promoter decides what venues to use and what size is necessary. If you dont fill a venue or sell tickets, it is the promoter that usually loses money, not the venue. Obviously there may be other systems of business but this is the usual way i believe. See Promoter (entertainment) for more info. We are talking about professional national tours here not a small band phoning round the local bars to get 30 mins on stage. I think it would be common sense that advertising in a local paper would be classed as advertising. Of course it wont be in the paper if nobody requests it. How are they going to know about it? Ultimately, this discussion is worthless, the above consensus is obvious that simply going on a tour is not evidence of notability unless reliable sources report it. --neonwhite user page talk 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However i do believe that adding tours that involve a major promoter (i.e. one that has promoted tours of several other notable bands) would improve the criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Either the promoter or the venue are independent parties from the band. Either one making a decision to book a band on a national tour into large venues qualifies as evidence of notability. You continue to mistakenly insist that a calender of events is "advertising"; you have no evidence to support this assertion, or really, any of your other assertions. You have also yet to provide any examples of any bands who have reached notability through this criterion who are not in fact notable. I really see no reason to continue this discussion until you provide any evidence this is being misused. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably a bit late, here, but it's also worth noting that this criterion helps establish notability for non-mainstream-pop groups as well. For instance, a Chinese folk ensemble which tours the U.S. and gets a writeup in the New York Times could then be definitively established as notable. Same with classical chamber ensembles and so forth. As long as there's a reliable source to back it up, an international tour is a fine indicator of a group's notability. Chubbles (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main arguement from my point of view is that the criteria is obsolete. If an act has reliable sources then they qualify as notabile anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true of all of these criteria. These are indicators which help us determine whether the group is of sufficient popularity or critical acclaim to merit an article. Chubbles (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't true of all critera, nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 don't require the usual second party reliable sources. --neonwhite user page talk 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A group whose tour is generating independent press already has sources for notability elsewhere, so that this will be a non-issue. The fact is that any "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" is a usable source. Cut point 4. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline doesn't say anything regarding articles about symphonies, like the articles linked from the lists seen in Category:Lists of symphonies. Now, I think it's obvious that a symphony by a notable composer is notable, but this guideline should probably address it. --Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Notability is not inherited, many could probably receive brief mentions in the parent article. What matters is sourcing regarding the specific subject, not who wrote it or whether they're notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSA is a myth. Is it referred to anywhere besides WP:AADD? Besides, a symphony is analogous to a book, and we do allow a book to be deemed notable simply because its author is. Torc2 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So given that WP:ATT died a fairly impressive death and is now maintained only as an essay, does anyone object to my rephrasing the last paragraph of the introduction to point to WP:V and WP:N instead? --jonny-mt 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --jonny-mt 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles criteria 9 states that musicians and ensembles can be considered notable if they produce a work which becomes put into rotation nationally by any major radio network.

• Would a satellite-based service such as XM or Sirius count?
• Would a cable-television based service such as Music Choice or Music Choice Extra count?
• Would an internet-based service by a very large provider such as AOL.com or DI.fm count?

JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to listeners. The spirit of the criterion is that acts that get significant play on a wide-reaching network are likely to be sourceable. Nationwide repeated play on a major network would reach people on the order of millions. I seriously doubt that individual XM or Sirius channels, or Music Choice rotation would lead to millions of listeners. The internet ones, I'm not as familiar with. DI.com, for instance probably shouldn't count -- they apparently have many different simultaneous broadcasts, so rotation on one of those wouldn't reach that many people. And I do think millions is the kind of numbers we should be talking about: in borderline cases, we ought to just look for sources. Mangojuice^talk 13:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you don't like this criterion at all. I would agree that it seems rather arbitrary. If the move was to eliminate this national rotation criterion, I might be inclined to support that. But to summarily denounce one or more of the above for one article, while accepting, for example Westwood One for another, seems too arbitrary. Perhaps it should only apply if the network in question was listed in Radio network or its associated daughter lists, or shows up in Category:Internet radio. Or for an unmanipulatable resource, perhaps the MIT radio locator? I dunno. This criteria is too spongy the way it is, IMHO. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the way I see this. For most subjects beyond music, the criterion is basically the existence of adequate sources. That makes sense because in any event every topic must be verifiable anyway. For musical topics, that is still the minimum requirement, but there's a gap between sourced and sourceable. If someone thinks a subject should be deleted, they are asking for sources. When a subject's apparent importance is clear, lack of sourcing is not a good reason for deletion, but rather a matter for eventual improvement. The purpose of the other criteria beyond #1 here serve to describe cases where it should be clear that the group is notable, and that the article should therefore not be deleted because sources seem highly likely to exist, even if none have been brought forward. So, a group being played repeatedly on a broadcast with millions of listeners makes sense -- they must be significant enough that good sources exist somewhere. Mangojuice^talk 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5

What are the major labels? Which labels are major indie? Are there criteria that make a label 'major'? Is this label satisfying the criteria, if they exist? Thank You. Welt^anschaunng 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always gone by the logic that if it's got an article, it's sufficiently major. Others may disagree with me here though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say if it has an article, it's either major or "an important indie". I'm sure there's a more technical definition somewhere. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I go by number of notable acts signed -- at least a couple notable artists (i.e. notable for something more than just being on that label) probably means the label's notable too. For example, Broken Bow Records has five acts signed right now: Jason Aldean, Crossin' Dixon, Lila McCann, Craig Morgan, and Megan Mullins. All five have charted singles, and two of the five have put out multiple albums for the label (Morgan has three, one of which is gold; Aldean has two, one platinum and one gold). Just the label's current roster alone is enough to illustrate notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The currect criteria says many of the bands should be notable. I think this criteria needs work as there is often confusion. Why does it add to an artists notability that they have released material on the same label as someone else who is notable? To me this just doesnt add up. I think there needs to be better criteria for defining non-important labels or the criteria itself needs to be reassessed. --neonwhite user page talk 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A label is independent of the band; being signed and distributed by the label means they believe the band is notable. It's like asking "Why does it add notability for a subject to be covered in the New York Times? Just because they've covered other major stories?" —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not the same at all, it's like saying all products made by a company are notable because one of their products is. Music is the product of a record label so if it makes several notable products, it doesn't follow that all their products are notable. Obviously some independant labels have a distinct history, [2 tone], [Sub pop] etc but the majority do not. I believe this should be defined solely by significant second party coverage of the labels' histories and not by the fact that they may have had a handful of barely notable bands signed at one time. --neonwhite user page talk 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music is the product of a record label so if it makes several notable products, it doesn't follow that all their products are notable. Your argument is flawed. The label does not record the album and is under no obligation to release the album (unless the contract states as much, which is a different indication of notability for the artist). Stories are the product of new outlets, so if a paper has released reports on several notable subjects, do we assume any subject covered is notable? Yes, actually, that's how we define notability. Do we automatically accept articles from all newspapers with equal weight? No, because we require the journalistic body to have a certain reputation. The same goes for labels: do we assume every album released on any label is notable? No, only the labels that have built a reputation. The same thing goes for the analogous situation in just about any other medium: an artist who has an exhibit in the NYC MOMA is going to be notable based on that alone; an exhibit in Bob's Museum on 12th isn't. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their is no flaw. The label does produce the album. They own the recording and the rights to reproduce it, so it is their product. The subject of news is entirely a false analogy as wikipeida relies specifically on published sources for notability. A better analogy is in sports personalities, you are not necessarily guaranteed notability because you play or played on the same team as another sportsman who is considered notable. What is a 'reputation'? the only way to have a reputation is through second party reliable sources as i suggested. What we have to consider that there are potentially hundreds of tiny labels that have had a handful of artists notable signed to them at one time or another. Does that make them an important or a major independant label? --neonwhite user page talk 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any player on a professional sports team is automatically considered notable, so that's another analogy that goes in favor of keeping this. The relationship of labels to artists and their recordings is not cut-and-dried. To say the label "owns" the recording isn't really accurate. They might own the master tapes and the copyright. In any case, this might establish a link between a label and an album, but the label and the band are still independent bodies. That the label invested in the band and released their music is proof that the label believes the band is notable. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say a professional sports team, please do not misrepresent my posts, this is considered incvil and bad ettiquette. Labels almost always own a recording, if they did not they could not make any money. I still disagree that notable artists effect the notability of other artists that just happen to be on the same label. --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that you said "professional sports team", so please don't accuse me of misrepresenting you or being uncivil. I said the precedent in Wiki for analagous situations is already clearly established: athlete:recording artist::professional sports team:major label. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the problem of a "walled garden" in which the label and its bands are not really notable, but because the label has blue-linked bands on its page and the bands have a blue-linked record label, it passes the guideline? Blast Ulna (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a non-notable label have an article? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion, Torc? :) (I have speedily deleted at least a handful of "record labels" for failing to assert by WP:CSD#A7.) Blast Ulna, I follow the blue links. Neon white, in my opinion a better analogy is publishing houses. Vanity presses aren't going to attract reputable authors because they're vanity presses. Publishing houses who have signed significant talent are more attractive to other authors and can afford to be more selective. Likewise, as Torc says, a record label with a roster of notable bands is more likely to be selective in signing their acts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't guaranteed and not necessarily so. It may be true that certain publishing houses can afford to be selective but that doesnt mean everything they publish is by a notable author. We also have to consider that the publishing house may not always have been in the position to be selective and may have in the past published many un-notable works, much like a record label may have. So by simply saying any band having a release by a certain label at any stage is notable is problematic. I completely disagree that independant labels are always selective when it comes to signing bands, especially one without a business philosophy. We just cannot assume this. Indie labels are known for taking chances on bands that may not become notable. Consider a small DIY label having released two very low budget albums by a band that were never heard of again, many years later the label signs a couple of bands that happen to go on to become notable artists. According to current guidelines this would make the original band notable even though they achieved very little. What about bands that own their own labels, does that make any bands they sign instantly notable? --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Band-owned labels wouldn't qualify unless they also signed several other notable acts and survive for a while; note that by definition important indie labels require "a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". As for your other suggestion—non-notable band slips by on the inherited notability of later acts—do you have some specific examples? They're always helpful when discussing the application of rules. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just glancing around, how about Lucid Records? A couple of their acts are up for deletion. Blast Ulna (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Hmm. Kind of looks like they're doing okay at AfD, though. But it looks like a potentially interesting test case, since there's a whole lot of marginal notability in that line-up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but that band Hey Mercedes isn't one of Lucid Records' acts. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You probably didn't notice that the AfD is a multiple artist AfD. :) The Lucid artists that I see up for AfD—The Firebird Band, Chris Broach and L'Spaerow—are all included by reference in the AfD for Hey Mercedes. That's where their deletion is being debated. Where there different Lucid artists you had in mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• They are connected through one artist and by being on the same AfD, but I just looked at the acts listed on Lucid's page. I think this whole notable ala Kevin-Bacon-six degrees-of-separation thing is untenable. We should go back fall in line with the rest of Wikipedia to normal methods of establishing notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Go back"? This criterion was included when this guideline was created in 2005. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Go back to pre-January of 2005, you mean? While the language has evolved, that's been part of the music criteria since this guideline was established. The second edit to this page was placing the specific definition. It seems pretty well established as "normal" at this point. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid Records itself looks like it can be deleted if no secondary sources are added. I don't see anything fulfilling the notability requirements. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Moonriddengirl) That's the point. The bands can still be easily deleted once their non-notable label is deleted. You could even make it part of the same AfD (like NN bands and their album articles, which is actually a perfect analogy for this). I think that's why we don't have circular requirements. The purpose of #5 is to say, "OK, this label has established themselves as an respected authority. Their attention is valued at a premium, and if they're going to give it to a band long enough to release multiple albums, that's evidence of notability." —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given I found a "walled garden" in a matter of minutes, I think that this problem is real. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't though. You found a label with an article that possibly shouldn't have one. As far as I know, there are no criteria allowing a label to establish notability through its acts. (I can imagine a few situations where that might occur, but they're going to be rare and involve acts that are already very notable.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People argue all kinds of things at AfD. The label and all acts listed on its page are all tagged for lacking refs and a couple are marked for deletion. This was the first record label I looked at. I didn't find it by looking in AfD, either. Shall I go find more? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently, the example you found doesn't demonstrate that these bands are non-notable. So far, only the nominator has !voted to delete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's because the nominator included too many things in the AfD. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Finding NN labels with articles isn't an effective argument against #5; it just shows that people write articles that don't belong here, not that our criteria for inclusion is flawed. Go ahead and look for them - for no other reason, it'll help improve the quality of the Wiki. I would tag those articles first and maybe do a quick Google search before going straight to AfD though; that an article lacks sources and needs cleanup isn't necessarily proof that it should be deleted. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about this label, Goldenrod Records? If I nominated one of its bands for deletion, then people would argue they were signed to an important indie label, and the proof that the label was notable? Many blue-linked bands. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That would seem to be a reason for making a well-stated AfD nomination. It's possible to be complete without running afoul of WP:TLDR. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is frustrating for me; I don't get what you mean. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "the proof that the label was notable? Many blue-linked bands." - where is that listed as acceptable sole evidence of notability for labels? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What I was getting at was that the band article cannot be deleted if the label is claimed to be important. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it can. If the label is NN, AfD the label. When the label AfD closes, AfD the band. There is no deadline and no harm in following proper procedure. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point, labels can be notable with having notable artists signed. The point i was making originally is that the criteria #5 is so vague on what counts as an important indie lable. A history of a 2 years isn't exactly that long for a label to have existed and i think the arguement here is that label could be argued to be important simply because they have 2 or 3 bands that have an article. Regardless of the quality of those article I dont see why this would make any artist releasing material on that label notable. To be this goes against the main guidelines. --neonwhite user page talk 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the wording of #5 to be any more vague than much of the general notability guideline. The criterion makes sense: an important, notable indie label has built itself a reputation as an respected authority on music; their published (i.e. released) opinion on what is notable is as authoritative and influential as the opinion of an important magazine. Having two articles on your band appear in Pitchfork no less of an indicator of notability than having two albums released by SubPop or Matador Records. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that no indie label is important, there are many that are but alot are not and i think the criteria is too inclusive if it allows a label to be considered important simply for existing for 2 years and having a couple of notable(in wikipedia terms) artists signed to it. I wouldnt consider such a label important . I think the reputation as "authoritative and influential" should, at least, be 2nd party sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 05:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who ever said labels do not have to have secondary sources? Where are you getting that from? Where is that in this guideline? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's an experiment. Pick 5 indie record labels at random. Note that some of of the bands are redlinked. What in the WP:MUSIC guidelines prevents the creation of articles for all those bands? As I read it, nothing. If you say, "well, those band articles were deleted," then that suggests that the guideline is being applied unevenly/unfairly. If nobody is creating those articles, then it is because they don't consider them notable enough for Wikipedia. And since these tend to be the same guys that created the page for the label and some of the bands, this suggests that even they know certain bands just aren't notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There's at least four faulty assumptions there: (1) The assumption those articles should not be created, (2) the assumption that if the article was deleted, the fact that it satisfied the notability criterion was known and consciously ignored, (3) the assumption that anything notable will already have an article and (4) the assumption you can infer editors' intent from the creation or lack of creation of an article. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, suppose that the record label has one band that did well ten years ago, a handful of bands that have articles but are not successful, and some red-linked bands. How do I get one of the unsuccessful bands deleted via AfD? I will be told that because their label has that one successful band, all of its bands are immune from deletion. If a member of one of those blue-linked bands has a side project that hasn't even cut a record, it cannot be deleted because his other band is notable, and his other band is notable because it is signed to a label which had a successful band ten years ago. This can go on ad infinitum. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Your contradicting yourself. Does the label have one notable band or several notable bands? "Success" has nothing to do with any of this. Your question about side-projects is also totally off-topic, but isn't a concern because the criterion specifically says that in such a case, it may be appropriate to cover it via redirect. You're making far too much out of this than there is. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• When I say "blue-linked" I don't mean notable--just that an article exists, which might be on a notable band, but might not. "Success" has everything to do with this; how else do we decide if a corporation is notable? By sales or some other metric. My whole argument is that there are clusters of band articles, all held together by the lynchpin of being signed to a label, and because there is an article for the label, people assume--without reliable sources--that the label is notable. If the band articles and the label article are all unsourced, they could be the work of promoters. There are consultants on the internet now for people to try to get their product onto Wikipedia and keep it there--they study our rules and exploit our weaknesses. It would be best if every article had some kind of source demonstrating its notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But there's no criteria that allows labels to satisfy notability based solely on the bands they have released. You keep insisting that there's some kind of loop that can be exploited, but there isn't. Nothing in WP:MUSIC sets the threshold for label notability. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you are right. If I find a label that has no reliable sources and nominate it for deletion, I will let you know if anybody says "keep" because it has many bands signed to it. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately this is a question about how inclusive wikipedia should be? and i don't think this is going to be answered here. Why is it that music has different criteria? --neonwhite user page talk 00:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it is mostly historical. If I'm not mistaken, the guidelines are "organic." Blast Ulna (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm hoping to gather an understanding of the issues involved here, and formulate a couple of changes to the guidelines that most people will mostly agree with. I haven't really figured it all out yet; if I had an answer beyond every article needing reliable sources I would have proposed it. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Why not? Books do; people do. I listed a whole bunch of them right below the arbitrary section break. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any are as inclusive as these criteria. --neonwhite user page talk 05:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Music does not have "different criteria". WP:MUSIC simply demonstrates how the notability guidelines apply to this group of topics; it's the same criteria adapted for this medium. It can't be different from the notability guideline, because it is the notability guideline. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to admit that there is some controversy over these guidelines. Can you think of some way to tighten them up so that notable albums get to stay and non-notable albums go? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly don't see anything wrong with the guideline. I don't see the proliferation of album articles as much of a burdon, since they're essentially information about the band itself that has just been arranged into logical chunks. The album info could be included in the band article since it is appropriate content, but that'd look really ugly and make the article tough to read. It may also preclude the use of album covers due to copyright restriction since we wouldn't be using them on articles about the album itself. The other thing is that because this guideline is the definition of what is notable, implying there's something not notable that satisfies the criteria of the notability guideline kind of doesn't make sense to me. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Earlier you said the guideline was to help interpret WP:N for music, now you are saying it is the definition. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy? What controversy? Someone asked a question and from there the discussion degenerated into an argument between, let's see, about four or five people taking different sides of that old, old argument: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. We're right back where we started. Grimhim (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that you've changed your note above, Blast Ulna, to a suggestion that we "fall in line with the rest of Wikipedia to normal methods of establishing notability". The rest of Wikipedia has plenty of specialized criteria for specialized situations that rely on nebulous or ill-defined definitions of the notability of other things. We are expected in such circumstances to exercise reason in identifying whether those "other things" qualify. For example, in WP:BIO, an individual is notable if s/he "has received significant recognized awards or honors". Creative professionals are notable if "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries". Entertainers who have "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Porn stars are notable if they have "won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award". Academics may be notable if they have "received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." Books may win "a major literary award". Film, even more nebulous, may be reviewed by "nationally known critics" or receive "a major award for excellence" or be taught at a "college with a notable film program" or be produced by a "country's equivalent of a 'major film studio'." Web material may be "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". A book may be notable even if there is no reliable sourcing, so long as "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources". I'm a big fan of clarity myself, but a good deal of individual interpretation seems to be included in all of the guidelines that I looked at, except, possibly, Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). Wikipedia's "normal methods" seem often to require interpretation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes, everything needs interpretation. I'm not the best arguer in the world. It just seems to me that there are a lot of articles on non-notable labels, bands, albums and songs out there (an impression I gathered by hitting Random article link). When I see articles at AfD, there is never any attempt to show notability by sources, but instead by what I consider impossible-to-counter WP:MUSIC guidelines. When I tagged articles for sources, I get told that none are required by WP:MUSIC, not even for WP:V. So I am casting about here, trying to find a way to tighten up the guidelines a little bit. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're being simplistic, contrary and petulant, Blast Ulna. I deleted your RS tags on some articles and contended they didn't need verifiable sources. Those articles were all (as I recall – correct me if I'm wrong) stubs on albums by notable artists. I argued that because the stubs consisted of little more than an infobox, tracklisting, personnel and a one-paragraph intro, all of which obviously used the album liner notes themselves as their source, there was nothing there to source. I argued that under WP:V and WP:CITE, sources were required only for statements likely to be challenged. It's reasonable to assume good faith on those articles. But I emphasise: they were albums by notable bands and therefore bestowed with an implied notability because of that. Here's the bottom line: I would very much like Wikipedia to contain a knowledge base of recording artists and albums that exceeded that of AMG; that made Wikipedia the first port of call when seeking information on an album or a band. If that requires some flexibility in terms of notability and verifiabilitym it's a small price to pay. Grimhim (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Near as I can figure, WP:V makes no exceptions, and I am not going to debate it here. If Grimhim wishes he can go to the WP:V talk page and see how well his notion is received. Blast Ulna (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's keep it civil, shall we? As far as RS tags on album articles, this guideline says, "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true." Requesting reliable sources is hardly out of line with that. I've done it myself on occasion while doing album quality assessments for the project. That said, at the moment, I believe that the criterion is okay as it is. Not perfect. But okay. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I interpret the quoted line to mean that every article must have third party sources attesting to the notability of their topic. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Albums articles are essentially considered subarticles of band articles. The concept of "subarticle" is still developing (there's a good discussion of it over at the Wikipedia_talk:FICT, but in practice, if there's a source for it in the band article, the default assumption is the album is notable and the basic facts about the album are confirmed unless reasonably disputed. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most band articles are short enough to have their albums on the same page. I hope this concept of subarticles fails. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To a certain extent, I interpret it that way, too, Blast Ulna. (Although as I noted above there are some book articles regarded as notable even without secondary sourcing.) Without some kind of sourcing, an album article could be a hoax. (I've seen a number of those come through CSD.) Torc, even an AMG link will verify that the band does, indeed, have such an album, and if the band is notable that's all it takes, imo. :) Blast Ulna, I suspect album articles are here to stay. Indeed, I hope they are. I'll also note that we've wandered a bit off topic...which never happens on Wikipedia. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mind album articles, but I would mind every album ever made having a Wikipedia page. I've seen Moonriddengirl and Torc2 around and know you guys do good work. What I am hoping to do is close some loopholes in the guidelines to stymie people from keeping their truly non-notable label/band/album/side project/band member/song articles on Wikipedia. If you look at my comments at various AfDs, you'll see that I am happy as long as there are sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Brevity isn't the issue; it's organization and logical hierarchy. WP:SIZE allows for article split based on either size or style. Nobody wants to see band articles that have five or six tracklists and info boxes on a single page; it makes more sense organizationally to put that on a different page, where it is accessed easily only by those who want that information. There's a reason it evolved this way even though most album articles viewed it total isolation don't stand up to the strictest interpretation of the WP:V policy and WP:N guideline: it evolved this way because it makes sense to present the information like this. It's generally understood that it does meet these requirements when viewed in conjunction with the band article and its sources. If together they're lacking, then that's a problem. That's why associated album articles are often deleted as part of band AfDs. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really argue that something is correct or should continue to be done because that's how it always has been done and how consensus decided it long ago. Remember consensus can change. Every article should meet WP:N and WP:V criteria. If there is sufficient info to warrant a page spilt then it will likely pass notability. --neonwhite user page talk 00:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true if it was remotely what I was arguing. I'm saying editors have embraced these precedence for a reason, and the reasoning is clear and logically sound. Consensus can change, which is why subarticle structure is going from just being common practice to being fully accepted by the guidelines. If you're saying consensus might eventually go against album articles, that's, except it isn't not and shows no signs of doing so. Also, nothing I said above is contradicted WP:N or WP:V. WP:N continually uses the word "topic", not "article", so it's clear that it's referring to a broader scope. WP:V states that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" but qualifies the method of attribution: "alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions". An album article with basic information makes no assertions that are not verifiable by primary sources (i.e. the album itself) (aside from maybe "this exists", and verification of that is in the main article, the band article). Adding a reflist whose sole entry is the album itself is pedantic to the point of absurdity; it's assumed that the primary source is reference. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures change and the discussion here is testament to the fact that not all editors think non-notable albums should have articles and i have seen many deleted/redirection by afd because they had no second party sourcing. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot ask for sources for an album that you suspect may be inaccurate or non-notable. Every article needs to assert it's article. may i remind people that wikipedia is not a database of record releases like discogs. --neonwhite user page talk 05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (Hang on, Neon white has just inserted a comment above mine and now it seems like I'm agreeing with him. Take a bit of care!) To User:Torc: Agreed. It's all about common sense and reason. User:Moonriddengirl argued above that some album articles are hoaxes. Any of these, of course, could have cited the album liner notes as the source to satisfy a demand for verifiability, except of course that the liner notes would be as fictional as the album. The fact is also that an AMG link doesn't always exist for an album, nor is the lack of one an indicator of NN. There are many significant, notable Australian or New Zealand bands, for example, that have not yet appeared on the radar of AMG. Reason: AMG is going to be primarily concerned with American releases. Grimhim (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, sources were available every time I pressed the issue. Look, I'll take a review in the local alternative weekly; I know that teenage kids in a garage band are unlikely to get a even a local write-up or signed to even the lamest of labels. A counter-argument is that it is easier for bands from smaller countries to achieve notability; being voted the best metal band from Andorra would be much easier than being voted the best metal band from France. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true that AMG is not available on everybody. It's a good resource, but not an exhaustive one. I've invested in a couple of reference books to help me out with my album articles, and even they don't always help much. I recently did an article on the debut album of B. B. King, Singin' the Blues. It's not even mentioned in The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll. I'm lucky it was reissued multiple times, since the various AMG articles allowed me to cobble together something seemly. :/ The debut album of a musical legend, and I couldn't find a single other review...no local alternative weekly; no major music magazines. Five charting singles. I found nothing. (And if you do, please add it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I found two nice sources for your album article. By the way, one of my sources calls it Singing the Blues, not Singin' the Blues. The other goes into lots of wonderful detail on individual tracks. This is exactly why sourcing is so important--it makes for better articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Elapsed time to find two high-end sources; 39 minutes. Time wasted arguing at AfD etc instead of finding sources? Blast Ulna (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• None if it's not AfD'd. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the sources! :) And, yes, I agree that sourcing makes for better articles. I'd have been pretty surprised, however, if somebody had nominated B. B. King's debut album for AfD, particularly since it had sources. I can't imagine why they would, unless they were being pointy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My point was that even an experienced editor like you needed help finding sources. You said you had had trouble. I pretended you had put a refimprove tag on your article, and added a couple of refs. My other point is that certain editors spend more time complaining about people asking for sources than just providing the sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, refimprove tags are not an attack on an article, but a request for assistance. When I am working on articles, I usually look for the references myself, but when I am addressing CSDs or rating articles, I will myself sometimes place them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, a guy who's been trying to get his kid added to Wikipedia for a while now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 (Chrishan album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrishan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventeen (Chrishan album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Ain't Gonna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Dotson Inc., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ride Wit Me (DBF song), etc... is back here: Chrishan and here 2 Late 4 Us. The sole claim to notability is hitting #1 in Amazon MP3 download charts. Given his history of trying practically anything to jumpstart publicity for his son's recording career (and the fact that the only two reviews of the single on Amazon are over the top glowing reviews from two people that have never reviewed anything before), I suspect some sort of shenanigans (a programmed bot that downloads the song over and over?) That's just my possibly paranoid suspicions though. Anyway, the question is: Does a #1 chart position on the Amazon Hourly download chart satisfy WP:MUSIC? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is no. All stores have a chart but they aren't considered a national music chart. If this is a problem with a particular editor and he/she has been warned then i would recommend taking it to the admin noticeboard. --neonwhite user page talk 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a question as to what "unreleased" means in this context: is it referring to an upcoming, to-be-released album, an album that was recorded with the intent of a release, but scrapped by someone along the line, or an album that was recorded with no intent of a release, but has seen distribution -- by means either legal or illegal -- on par with a regular label-sanctioned release? —  MusicMaker5376 15:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would take it as meaning any of the above except if it was never intended by the artist for release but was released legally by the label anyway. If the material is older and is released well after recording, it's generally termed "previously unreleased" or in some circumstances, "archival". —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that the third instance is what's giving us a little trouble. There are signifigant, notable unreleased albums that end up being leaked to the general public. They don't get the "signifigant coverage" required by the guideline because they were never distributed by normal means to music magazines to be reviewed in any way, but, nonetheless, fans of the artist distribute them widely among themselves. Some of these albums are important in the overall discography of the band, but the songs don't see radio play and the albums never chart. Not everything gets the press of The Lillywhite Sessions or Smile (Beach Boys album), but that doesn't mean that they're not notable. —  MusicMaker5376 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have Started this in the previous section but my concerns are a bit broader. The section covering albums needs some major work as it currently in my opinion being abused by User:Mdsummermsw. Take a look at his user page and look at some of the Prods and AFD's he has proposed. Some very notable "unreleased albums" are on the list. If a notable artist records something that is never released that can pass WP:V I see no reason why it should not be included in wikipedia. I understand the intention of this section but it falls short and is very ambiguous. Ridernyc (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting up the pelts of articles he got deleted up as trophies is in very poor taste. Are you having trouble finding sources for a particular article that you think should be kept? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed on both counts. What makes the albums notable? If a third party has documented them sufficiently to pass WP:V, they're going to be notable enough to keep. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at a few of them, many are unlikely to survive. I deprodded one that had sources already. Other than that, are there any you are sure are notable? Blast Ulna (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hastily Cobbled Together for a Fast Buck Album seems rather notable. As does The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday. —  MusicMaker5376 23:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found a good source for The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday and added to the article and the AfD. Couldn't find anything believable for The Hastily Cobbled Together for a Fast Buck Album, claims that it will be released are stale. It must be awful. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • First to be clear I would rather see the guide line fixed then focus on one editor. But I found these 2 nominations rather disturbing [4], [5]Nominting an album that will be releeased in 2 weeks in just plain insane. The second was prod'd as a unreleased which shows that he is not even reading Things when he prods them. He has also had severel albums by The Residents albums prod for little to no reason. I'm actually going to be spending alot of time in deltion review since albums like Baby Sex should not have been deleted. The whole thing is really getting out of hand. Ridernyc (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Residents articles are so devoid of sources that they could be mistaken for an elaborate hoax. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • For the most no album articles on wikipedia have any sources at all. The main Residents article is in the middle of a massive rewrite. If you take a look at the revision history you will see how much content I added, I still need to add references but it will get there. There is also the major issue of the fact that most published sources on The Residents are out of print and highly collectible making sourcing information hard to do and a very expensive endeavor. This is the issue with many of these articles not just The Residents, you just can't do a google search and source information from the 70's and earlier. There maybe 100's of articles in magazines like Melody Maker, Rolling Stone, etc.. but none of that is online. These articles are being prod'd with 0 warning. Ridernyc (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No sources on most album articles is a problem. He invited you to dispute resolution. Since all you want is to slow him down, you will likely find agreement there. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • As stated before I consider certain editors current actions a separate issue. The issue here is what I consider to be a flawed section of this guideline. Ridernyc (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, I'm here to get the guidelines tightened up some. Wouldn't it be better to ask on the WP:CRYSTAL talkpage? Blast Ulna (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't see it as being a WP:Crystal issue. Ridernyc (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I changed the language a bit, made it more positive. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reset Indent not really. I personally feel aproject by a notable artist that can pass WP:V is notable. I think the album section is over reaching the boundaries of notability and pushing into the teritory of limiting content that should have nothing to do with notability. Once the Artists notability is established the only thing that matters is WP:V. Ridernyc (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you give an example of the overreaching? Keep in mind that album information can be merged to the artist's page, space permitting. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider this a better practice for unreleased albums unless there is a significant amount of info about them. --neonwhite user page talk 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • see that just points out how dumb the issue is. If it passes criteria to be included in an article then it passes criteria to have it's own article. What you just said is only artist that have short articles have the right to have "non-notable" albums include in the project. Ridernyc (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually incorrect. Notability guidelines only apply to articles not to article content, albums judged not to be notable enough to have an article are often included in a artist's article instead. All released albums are generally listed in the artist's article. --neonwhite user page talk 18:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to read what the guideline actually says since you are contradicting it slightly. I'm also still waiting for anyone to to contradict my statement. Any project by a notable artist that passes WP:V should be included in wikipedia. So far no has justified the need to prove notability after you have already established the artists notability. Ridernyc (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having "every" project by a notable artist would run into WP:NOT#DIR. Let's take an example from painting. The Rembrandt article lists 19 "selected" works. He painted about 300, and yet even some of his "selected" works are redlinked. People on the talk page talk about reducing the size of the list, and actually mock the long works list on the artist Botticelli's article. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, listing every project from a notable artist would in no way violate WP:NOT#DIR, because there is a justifiable reason for including them. If the Rembrandt regulars are mocking the Botticelli list, they are wrong. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or being encyclopedists rather than compendists. Even some articles on different plant and animal species get deleted/redirected for not showing notability--they were only described in the primary literature. The justifiable reason for not including things on Wikipedia is that no secondary or tertiary sources exist. I have updated the main page of this article with a couple of the ways I use to get sources; Google book searches and Google scholar searches. Also, somebody on the project should get or go to the library for The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (8904 pages) for material before 2006. Many of these books are searchable online. We can find sources for things. Really. I'll help. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So so far I see no rational other a total misinterpretation of WP:NOT#DIR. Ridernyc (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's analyze the Albums sections line by line.

your are ignoring notability. Verifiability doesnt not always been notability. --neonwhite user page talk 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines.

Again I ask why? So far no one has a giver a rationale for this at all. If the artist is notable his projects are notable. I argue that this really should cite verifiable not notable.

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.

"In general" and "May have", without explaining the criteria involved this vague line is meaningless.

Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.

If we establish that notability is with the artist then this is not as much of an issue.

Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable.

So far there has been zero rationale given for this statement that is limiting content. This is stepping into policy area. Articles on projects by notable artists are notable and as long as they pass WP:V and other policies they should be allowed in the project.

unreleased albums can be notable if they have substantial coverage in reliable sources.

This line actually contradicts policy. It contradicts WP:Crystal. Also as we have seen from previous discussions this line is trying to talk about multiple interpretations of the term "Unreleased Album", not really something that's acceptable in a guideline.

Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting.

This is a style issue and has nothing to do with notability and should not be covered here. Ridernyc (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on Riderinnyc's comments... The first line, the basic Notability requirement, is the only hard-and-fast rule. And since it's a reprint of an existing policy, it's only here as a reminder. All the others are simply clarifications and guidelines as to what to watch out for. The line about demos is not strictly correct. It may or may not be true, and it's not exactly relevant. Demos, et al. are not usually notable, but can be with enough notable sources. The line about unreleased albums does not contradict WP:Crystal, though, because that policy does not contradict WP:N. What I'm saying is that according to Crystal, articles should not consist of or contain speculation, and according to WP:N, articles should contain only things that other sources say. These two neither contradict each other or the unreleased album guideline. -Freekee (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask the rational for why a album by a notable artist is not considered notable. Show me something here, another guideline a policy anything so far I have a lot of hot air. Second, they are all hard and fast rules and are being interpreted that way by certain editors. Show me the line that shows were it exaplains that the first line is the only hard and fast rule. 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

After this topic was brought to my attention from Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), I think Ridernyc has a point, but I'm not sure about the way he words it. I do not feel that an album is automatically notable, simple because it is the work of a notable artist. This falls under the concept of "Notability is not Inherited", and in terms of other notability guidelines, I've only ever seen such a case in WP:BOOK, which I gather from reading discussions to be a bit of a compromise to facilitate improvement. However, knowing Ridernyc's edits I'm sure he's well aware of this. The point he seems to make in earlier comments here is that it be an album from a Notable artist that is also Verifiable. I should think this would come close to something acceptable. I should still think that for Inclusion Criteria, more than simply Verifiable, the album should be verifiable through an Independent Reliable Source. I shouldn't think that is unreasonable, and for notable artists, even if such sources have not yet been found, there is rarely reasonable doubt that they exist so as to justify an AfD. If it is a work that is unable to meet this, then the content can still exist, either within the main article of the artist, or as a WP:SUMMARY style sub-article titled something like, "Minor works by <artist>". Ridernyc, I realize I'm making some assumptions regarding your positions, so could you tell me how this sounds to you? -Verdatum (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example. John Zorn immensely notable. Has won the MacArthur grant, insanely influential jazz musician, startrd an influential record label, one of the founders of The Knitting Factory in NYC. He has a discography of 268 albums [6]there is no way you could ever make everyone of these albums individually satisfy notability criteria. Are they suddenly not notable albums? Did he his influence magically diminish? If he was an artist with 3 albums we could merge the information into his article, but because he has 268 albums we can't include them?. If the artist himself is insanely notable how is his work not? How far is notability going to go, are we going to start limiting biographical data to only the notable portions of people lives? "Nope you can't mention anything about George Washington before he was a General, that part of his life is not what he is known for." Ridernyc (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a case such as that, personally, I would suggest a separate discography page. The major albums can be linked from there, and the less-notable ones can, at least, be mentioned without cluttering up his main page. In a case like that, I would probably break up the discography into separate pages for decades or groups of years since, admittedly, 268 albums is INSANE. (Did he ever sleep?) —  MusicMaker5376 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED used this way is a myth. It has no basis in any policy and is not reflected in the notability guideline. The only place it appears is the WP:AADD essay, yet somehow it is believed by some as truth. Even in that essay, all it says is that blanket arguments without support are wrong, and given the default assumption of notability granted to articles on geographic locations, certain political positions, books, schools, and professional athletes, even that statement is faulty. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need a little longer to reply to Rider's comment, but I wanted to say I agree with this, and it's a valid point. However, it begs mention that no mention of the converse statement that notability is inherited is made elsewhere (in WP Policies or WP:N) either. I believe this is because in the general case, inheritance is completely isolated from notability; they have nothing to do with eachother. In concensus chooses to form guidelines defining notability for specific inheritance relationships (as in WP:BOOK), then jolly good for consensus; it's to help improve WP overall. Again, I'm new to this document, but I suspect prior contributors to this guideline did not feel the need or desire to define such a relationship. That said, I see nothing trumping such a claim, and thus no reason consensus couldn't concievably change. I reserve my opinion on the matter pending further thought and investigation :) -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rider, in response to your query, they are all hard and fast rules and are being interpreted that way by certain editors. Show me the line that shows were it exaplains that the first line is the only hard and fast rule. The rule is not on the page. The rule is WP:N. This project's rules can be trumped by Wikipedia's policies. Let's look at those bold sentences. The first one is a restatement of the broad Notability policy. The second one includes the word "may" very prominently, and leads me to believe that albums must meet notability criteria on their own merits. Third sentence: says that album articles should be sourced, just like any others. Fourth sentence includes the phrase "in general." To me, this means assume they're not notable unless you can prove otherwise. Fifth sentence: restatement in part of WP:N. Sixth sentence: an obvious suggestion about what to do with a certain kind of thing. If an editor is taking these loose guidelines as proof that their article deserves to live, they need to be corrected. (I'd like to mention that I'm not arguing for the appropriateness of these guidelines, but that I'm explaining how I think they should be interpreted.) -Freekee (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rider, in response to I ask the rational for why a album by a notable artist is not considered notable. Show me something here, another guideline a policy anything. I believe the rationales are Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. An album without any Reliable sources cannot be verified to have notability, which is required to have an article. It is my opinion that the line, 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. is not a good guideline. If it weren't for the word "may," it would be in direct violation of WP:N. -Freekee (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More side stepping the issue, If an artisit is notable how is his work not notable?

His works are a component of his notability, but some always count more than others. If no reliable sources whatsoever can be found for an album, perhaps the critics thought it was not noteworthy. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridernyc (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Another Point "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). " So an artist can inherit notability from a record label, but an album does not inherit it's notability from the artist? Ridernyc (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I argued strongly against the idea of being signed to a major indie automatically conferring notability already. For example, Carly Smithson, on American Idol, met many of the requirements for notability, including being signed to MCA and winning a Meteor Award in 2003 for Best Irish Female Singer. Yet nobody created an article for her (in spite of a source being available at the time). Interesting, huh? Perhaps the guidelines are an attempt to define success rather than notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the example tells us nothing except Wikipedia is not finished. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some editors need reminding that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Just because something exists, it doesnt mean it automatically gets an article, this applies to songs, albums and artists. We should not create articles just because we can. They have to be useful and if including albums in an artists page is better for reading then that makes a better encyclopedia, which is the agreed aim of every editor, not creating as many articles as you can. To cover the point made by User:Ridernyc, i disagree with parts of criteria 5, the subject is not only inheriting notabilty from the label but from other artists on the label too. --neonwhite user page talk 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are yet again misquoting things. There is nothing indiscriminate about listing the works of a notable artist. Amazing how these little policy catch phrases take on a life of their own and lose all meaning, "notability is not inherited", "Wikipedia is not a directory", "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" this stuff is constantly thrown out there and totally misquoted. Ridernyc (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main notability criteria of coverage in reliable sources seems to me to be the key issue. Most albums by notable artists/released on meaningful labels (i.e. not just some home-pressed CD-R's) will receive reviews, which could be added to articles about those albums, and there will often be interviews with the artists where they discuss the album, so it seems reasonable to treat such releases as notable as a starting point. The main problem with articles about albums is that many don't have any sources included in the article. This is often easily addressed (or properly tagged), but unfortunately some editors seem to prefer deleting articles, deciding that no sources means not notable, rather than trying to improve the articles by adding sources. The fact that an album hasn't been released, either because it was shelved or because it just hasn't come out yet, should be irrelevant if it has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources. It would be helpful, however, if editors who create album articles could go beyond a picture of the album sleeve and a track listing, which is potentially WP:USEFUL but less than what's required for an encyclopedia article. Whether albums have their own articles or are incorporated into articles about the artists or their discographies will, to my mind, depend on the content of the album articles, the number of albums by the artist, and the size of the artist's article. In any case, proposing a merge would be the constructive approach. Article deletion generally isn't going to help this project. On the topic of the artist's record label affecting their notability, I think that releases on major or large indie labels indicates notability because they will indicate substantial investment in the artist and (generally) significant publicity and exposure. Releases only on small labels, or even self-releases, do not in my view indicate a lack of notability, however, which appears to be the assumption of some editors. Many artists sign to small independents or set up their own labels for various reasons other than just being unsuccessful or unimportant, it just means that significant coverage cannot be assumed. Another trend that worries me is the assumption that no article on WP means not notable. A while back, a band's article was deleted in haste due to lack of sources, while an article about one of their albums was kept as it had sources. A little common sense and a constructive attitude would go a long way here sometimes.--Michig (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I nominated Out of Control Raging Fire and a couple other songs for deletion, since these songs did not enter the charts and have no notability attached. After a dispute with the creator of these pages, I have discovered that for the most part, he wishes for the pages to be kept. I have suggested a merge/redirect to the albums, but he won't hear of it. Any suggestions? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still an issue? That AfD was closed as delete, so it's really not like the creator has much say in it. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's no longer an issue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 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]

This seems to be getting a bit out of hand. There are no real criteria for inclusion, so it just keeps growing and growing and growing. I have no idea how to deal with this one so any assistance would be a good thing. Pairadox (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's missing Rock Against Racism too, for shame! I assume the template is collapsable for starters? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is indiscriminate. Blast Ulna (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been mentioned above, but it seems like some editors are taking "unreleased" way too far. "Unreleased" in the context it is used here appears to me to mean albums that have been scrapped or lost, such as Smile (Beach Boys album), Songs from the Black Hole. Cigarettes and Valentines, etc. That is, an album with a confirmed, sourced release date in the near future is not intended to be considered NN as "unreleased" (nor is it WP:CRYSTAL, as it isn't unsourced speculation.) The phrase about Demos, mixtapes, etc. being "in general not notable" is being abused to discount any independent coverage of these works. I would like to change the text to clarify those two things:

Current: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; unreleased albums can be notable if they have substantial coverage in reliable sources.

Proposed: Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; however, these unreleased albums may be notable if they have independent coverage in reliable sources. Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag.

I don't want to make the change without some discussion before. Input is appreciated. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the word "unreleased" in the phrase "these unreleased albums may be notable....". —  MusicMaker5376 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would remove "unreleased albums" and leave it as "these may be notable...." —  MusicMaker5376 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, demos and mixtapes can be legally released, and even promo recordings were legally distributed, just to limited audiences. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's a step in the right direction, it at least makes the language more neutral and seems to be more inline with the wording of other notability guidelines. I would still like to see notability changed however something like "projects by notable artists are considered notable and can be includes as long they pass WP:V, and WP:RS." Ridernyc (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the guideline to Torc's wording, minus "unreleased albums" as suggested. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the guidelines diplay instruction creep and should be split up and trimmed. First, we are all generally in agreement that bands must have reliable sources showing notability. Much of the rest of the guideline is more of a list of reminders of what makes for a successful band, and where sources can be found. Second, many of the guidelines represent impossible situations, such as a band's tour having sources for notability without the band itself having any sources for notability. Third, some of the guidelines cross into the territory of WP:ALBUMS. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section covering bands is great and one of the most well written and easy to follow notability guidelines we have. After that though it turns into this strange,contradictory, and sometimes poorly written essay that tries to cover way to much area. The album sections tries to cover notability, style guidelines, WP:CRYSTAL, etc.. I think the first section more the adequately covers everything that needs to be established in this notability guideline. We are also beginning to see that some sections of this guideline are open to misinterpretation and abuse. Ridernyc (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you take a look at this guideline how it was year ago you will se that it has suffered from major instruction creep over the past year [7], of note is that the album section says exactly what I feel it should say, how it went from controversial to having consensus to be changed to the total is opposite in one year hints that there really is no consensus for this section. I'm still digging through the archives trying to find when and why it was changed. I think way to many people have had there hands at editing this guideline over the past year. Ridernyc (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 25 February 2007 album section is poor, it contradicts established notability guidelines and reads like the first post of a new inexperienced editor. The current version is significantly better. It has been developed to meat the needs of the community. The amount of disputes involving this makes it absolutely necessary ot have very clear and comprehensive guidelines. Remember it is combined albums and songs. it's not any bigger than sections of WP:BIO or WP:COMPANY and i cant really see anything that you can leave out. --neonwhite user page talk 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry don't really see a valid point in here at all. The current guideline also contra dicts other guideline like WP:Fict, please stay away from other stuff type arguments. Pretty much all the notabilty guideline contradict each, and they almost all contradict AFD outcomes. Ridernyc (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording regarding notability of albums and songs appears unncessarily tentative and tends to undermine the point of this part of the guideline. I'd suggest the sentence that 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" be altered. The word "may" would be better as "should", so "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums should have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The point being that if a band's notability has been demonstrated and accepted, their albums would therefore normally be regarded as also being notable, subject to the usual requirements for sourcing and verifiability. The current wording, in effect, could require notability to be proven for an individual album (or, indeed, all albums) if the band's notability may only apply.

An artist or band, Led Zeppelin or Paul McCartney, for example, will have a career that fluctuates, with albums topping charts at one point in their career and barely making the Top 100 in another. Yet all are significant markers in their career and each warrants an article because of the noteworthiness of the artist and the part those albums played in the fluctuation of their career. But to say any particular album only "may" be notable provides a dangerous allowance for its notability to be disputed, leading to an AfD. Grimhim (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As you can well imagine, I and many other people completely disagree with this notion. This is not, and will never achieve, consensus. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through all 7 pages of the archives I have found that there never was any real consensus for the albums section at all. The section on Demo's and bootlegs etc.. was added by one user after on other user agreed with him, that's far from enough consensus to change a guideline. It's seems over the past year people just got tired of fighting over the guideline and gave up. This caused it to slowly creep to the point it is now. I would say there is ample consensus for the bands section but anything past that will never have consensus and should be removed. Maybe making a note that guidelines for albums never reached consensus and noting both sides of the argument. Ridernyc (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:NB, not every book written by a notable author gains immediate notability, so an album/song should be no different. User talk:Grimhim's suggestion is wholey incompatible with basic criteria and principles of notability. Every article should be able to assert it's notability. I support removing this line. --neonwhite user page talk 15:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and once I'm done here I plan on moving on to there and changing that guideline. This would be somewhat of a other stuff argument. Ridernyc (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to regard most of the album articles as nothing more than directory entries, such as Those Who Are About to Die Salute You and thousands like it. I fully realise not every article will be as detailed as say The Beatles (album), but articles should have more than just a tracklist and other basic information. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]