According to Criteria 7 "musicians & ensaumbles" section, and Criteria 5 in the "others" section, the majority of independent artists would be considered notable. However, due to lack of commercial financial success or media attention, are frequently not included in Wikipedia. I present a series of major reasons as to why independent musicians should be included in Wikipedia.

Overview: Many independent artists self-fund international tours, recorded works (such as singles, EPs, LPs, etc). Some such artists are signed or affiliated with independent record labels who provide funding in part or entirely. This means they have released various recorded material, many are far more prolific than those in the commercial music industry. Their contributions to the commercial music industry are seen many years or decades into the future. This is not an exaggeration, if you think it is, please learn more about music in the world.

Financial Factors & Overlooked Promotion: Just because a group or individual, asociated or not, with a record label, management or promotion group, has the financial means, does not make them any more significant or important, in the tangible sense, than anyone else. The majority of the actions required to be broadcast by a media network (including in print) or receive chart success are directly related to how much money the group or individual has to spend on elements such as promotion. Despite this, many independent artists self-promote (create their own press kits, establish their own industry contacts) and much of their promotion is by word of mouth, a difficult element to track.

Contributions and Significance to Music: The contributions independent artists make to not just musical genres and styles, but every aspect of music, should not be underestimated or overlooked, regardless of their financial situations or prominence within the comemercial media sphere. Many such contributions are of far greater significance than those in the commercial music industry as it only represents a very small portion of music on Earth, and mostly the more marketable, saleable styles and genres in accordance with trends of the time.

Notability within Wikipedia: Wikipedia is one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias in existance, it contains both broad and specific information, and could potentially provide people access to very detailed and specific information, this is and could increasingly be, of great importance to everyone. Since when did the level of popularity and profit rdictate who or what is significant? For example, many species of plant of animal life may not be popular, or generate profit, or even be known, but this does not make these particular species any less important or significant. Perhaps this is an issue that extends beyond just music and concerns notability in general? Most of the criteria within the "musicians and ensaumbles" section is directly related to financial circumstances and affiliation with commercial entities. This must be discussed in further detail. Nick carson (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point #7 requires meeting of the policy WP:V. Any band that meets that policy should meet WP:MUSIC under criterion #1. Any band that does not meet WP:V cannot be included on Wikipedia, as arguing for their importance (in the absence of WP:RS) would constitute WP:OR. These seem at first blush to be insurmountable barriers to inclusion of unpublicized independent artists on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are also insurmountable barriers to the future of Wikipedia. History can't be written by the most commercially sucessful, who've been written about in the mass media, although that is how our past history has been written we all recognise that it is inappromriate as it exculdes vital information as is the case currently in WP regarding independent artists, musicians, writers, etc. Just because they may not comply with WP:V & WP:RS in many cases, does not mean they don't exist and certianly does not mean they are not notable or verifiable in the truest sense of the words. It may seem as though I'm a little voice for a little minority, but in truth I am a little voice for the majority of music that is created, recorded and performed, as most in the independent industry couldn't care less if they're included in something like WP but their apathy towards encyclopedic inclusion is no reflection of their true importance, significance. These policies should be discussed simultaneously as it has emerged that there are some major problems with the way these policies exclude significant historical information of encyclopedic importance. Nick carson (talk) 04:03, 7 November 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 lack of debate suggests that nobody cared, and that the admin chose correctly among the choices presented. You will also note that nobody complained when the tour dates and setlist were removed, leaving a rump article with nothing to say. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, there really isn't much in terms of content restrictions for articles. The whole huge page could be merged with the main Marilyn Manson article, and then the contents would be considered entirely appropriate and notability of the tour itself would be irrelevant (per WP:NNC), but that would make the article too long and stylistically awkward, and force the content to be moved out of the article. We're trapped in a loop of two (or more) guidelines that cause identical content to be judged differently depending only on formatting, which makes no sense at all, but nobody seems to be in a rush to resolve the problem. WP:NOT is the closest we come, and that policy is ambiguous to the point of being essentially useless. So we keep the subarticle on the tour separate, just like an album. If somebody wanted to push for a resolution between WP:NNC and WP:SIZE/WP:SS/WP:FICT, etc., and some real guidelines on what is acceptable content, I'd love to see that get through. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get back to the intent for which this section was created. I'm personally in favor of the synthesis between WP:NNC and WP:FORK, but I think it is beside the point. I percieve that some editors have the misconception that tours are innately notable, possibly through OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacies, I think, as per WP:N without sources that reflect otherwise, tours are not sufficiently notable to deserve an independent article. I think that often times, these tour articles are for tours that directly relate to the promotion of a specific album. Often times, the article for that album is no where near the limits of WP:SIZE. In those cases, I think it is sufficient to mention the tour as a subsection of the album article. I have no problem with a redirect, particularly when the name of the tour does not match the name of the album. However, my main point is, to save the trouble of taking people through this logical process, it would be much simpler and more convenient to have a section here explaining when it is appropriate for a tour to have it's own notable article, and when it is not. It's just easier to point people to WP:BAND#Tours than to point people to WP:N and then have to explain to them why it does not apply. How does that sound to people? -Verdatum (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Great song but not really notable (except for totally rocking, which, unfortunately is not part of WP:MUSIC). Redirect it to the album. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get any additional input from other uninvolved third parties? I generally agree with User:Hello Control, but I've been heavily involved in this article and would rather not be the one to piss on others' Cheerios. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, I think it could have borderline notability in that it has been included in notable media (the videogame) as well as on the album and in that it has been singled out for specific attention by VH1, though such lists are not worth much for notability as they go. If the article were chock-full of sourced contenty-goodness, one might argue against a merger on that basis. But it's not. If you merge it to the parent album (it looks like all that needs merging is its place on that VH1 list), those doing a search on the song will be able to locate information about it there. I'd support a merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it seems likely that there's more info out there, I'd support a merge as well. Even if it's theoretically notable, there doesn't appear to be a significant body of citable information on it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay because it's arguably their most popular song, it's in a video game, and it's considered one of the best metal songs. However, this guy owning the article and making it horrible doesn't do it justice.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's in this article that isn't already in or can't be easily included in the parent article? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it. Not because of its notability, but PD's owning of the article and making it an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern with the second criteria for musicians and ensembles.

  Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

The criteria itself actually doesn't really concern me, just the definition of "hit". Is it a single or an album? Does it have to be a "number one hit", a "top 10 hit", a "top 20 hit" or a "top 40 hit"? Does it have to reach a particular position, or is a musician which releases a single that peaks at 97 or 39 as notable?

I would appreciate if some-one could clear this up. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Generally, yes. (It might depend on the country and the exact nature of the chart in question in some cases) Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, within the industry and speaking from experience, #40 or higher is the threshold most-commonly used. --Winger84 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be regionally specific, as the threshold is usually determined by the countries individual characteristics. Nick carson (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an artist charts an album and not a single on any national chart? Is the artist not notable? This is the case for several jazz musicians? I'd appreciate some help. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in some discussions regarding the notability of contemporary worship songs, which tend to have a very short "shelf life". The existing song criteria are not really relevant to this genre. This is my first pass at some more relevant criteria:

• A song will be regarded as notable if it is at least five years old and has appeared in the CCLI Top 25 (issued every 6 months) at least 10 times in a single territory. The appearances do not have to be consecutive. (Reason - it is difficult to establish notability for recent songs, which may be popular for a few years and then fall into disuse, meaning they are probably not notable, and a song needs to have been popular for a prolonged period in the same region before it could be considered notable).

• A song will be regarded as notable if it has been published in at least five songbooks (each containing at least 100 songs) over a minimum period of ten years (Reason - inclusion in multiple substantial books over a prolonged period suggests notability and will eliminate most ephemeral material)

• A song will be regarded as notable if it is has been described as such (or as a "classic" or similar) by an authoritative independent verifiable source no less than five years after the songs inital release. (Reason - we should accept the views of experts but disallow premature claims to notability.)

• A song may be regarded as notable if exceptional circumstances exist that are not covered by the above criteria.

I also felt that the "performed independently by several notable artists" criteria wasn't really relevant for music intended for congregational use. Most notable worship songs will have been recorded multiple times by different artists, but I'm not sure the inverse is true, unless the recordings have been over a significant time period.

Comments would be appreciated. Sidefall (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Regarding the first criterion: I may not be utterly opposed to it, but your argument is not convincing. The fact that recent songs have had little chance to chart and therefore become notable is a feature, not a bug. What does it take for a song to achieve that?
  • Second criterion: Sounds like it might be reasonable. Are such songbooks typically published by a division of major publishing companies?
  • Third and fourth criteria: I don't think either of these need to be stated. Notability criteria are meant to be used to gauge the likelihood of sources existing that can be used to flesh out an article. If authoritative independent verifiable sources cover a song, and our article cites them, notability is not a relevant issue. And exceptional circumstances could really only be proven by citing authoritative independent verifiable sources.
  • Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd say it depends on who is hosting it and how much coverage the competition receives in news sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 6 states that notability may be determined by a band which "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."

I'm thinking that we need to discuss limitations on this. Several times now I have come across issues on CSD'd articles that claim some tenuous grasp on notability through generational loopholes in this criteria. In other words: You have Band A which is non-notable except that Lars Ulrich from Metallica was a member for fourteen minutes when he got really drunk in High School. This is all and good on it's own. However, what happens when you have someone from Band B who is claiming notability because one of its member went on to be in Band A who gained de facto notability from the Drunk Lars incident. The logical conclusion of this train of thought leads us to a very real situation where the policy allows notability of a joke of a band because it has a member who was a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band who had a member who once played backup keyboards for Stevie Nicks.

I don't like a loophole in a policy which makes every single band in the world notable just by playing "Seven Degrees to Kevin Bacon."

Thoughts? Trusilver 04:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps adding "This criterion has commonsense limitations" would help? Since obviously the case above does not make much sense (assuming there was no other coverage and that is the ONLY claim to notability). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dihydrogen monoxide's idea is fine. I think any extreme cases would have a lack of verifiable sources, and less extreme ones can always be redirected, as is already noted. Tuf-Kat (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It does suggest using redirects instead of an article. I don't think you need to add that as common sense and Ignore all rules intrinsicly apply to every policy and guideline anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

On RC patrol, came across an album which was simply the karaoke version (no vocals) of anther album. Are karaoke versions notable? Should they simply be speedy deleted with {{db-band}}? --John Nagle (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I strongly doubt a karaoke album is notable. I do not, however, see db-band as applying.

WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS says, "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." Are there third-party sources with anything meaningful to say?

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable," Probably just studio hacks.

"Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Again, seems doubtful.

Without actually seeing the article, I can't be sure. But it sure sounds like a goner to me. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be mentioned on original the album's article that it was popular enough to have a karaoke version made of it. If you did, you'd need some justification, and therefore have to find references to back up whatever you said about it. -Freekee (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see no consensus for this change, I have removed the disclaimer about mixtapes added today from the guideline. If any mixtape has sufficient sourcing to verify notability, whether original content or not, it may meet this guideline. If it doesn't, it probably isn't notable enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a number of discussions, editors wishing to save an article that does not meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC#SONGS have argued that a "single" is not a "song", essentially saying it is more of mini-album or EP. I would like some clarity added to the #SONGS section to clarify whether or not the guideline considers singles to be songs. Thoughts? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a song is an individual thing--"Amazing Grace" is a song. OTOH, I can see some confusion in how they're handled. Stronger (Britney Spears song) is kind of a munge between an article about a single, including track listings, and an article about the "a" side song. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a pervasive confusion between the two. Others editors establish context by identifying it as a "song" while others use "single". But for me, I use the former. After all, its not the single that gets reception but the song. The single is only a format. --Efe (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be confused. The same song may be recorded by many different artists and appear on many different recordings. A single is a particular recording of a particular song by a particular artist. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, how should an article on a single be treated? As an album or a song? I understand why an album or a song might be notable, but a single? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single is notable if it sold well. A song is notable if it's been recorded by a number of artists, award winning, or just plain famous (like "Happy Birthday").

I think the real question is: when do we need separate articles for these things? In most cases, these articles are harmlessly combined. For example, Mony Mony is about a three notable things: Tommy James' song, Tommy James and the Shondells' single, Billy Idol's single. On the other hand, Somewhere Over the Rainbow is only about a song, with a tiny bit of info about who recorded it. Here, only the song is notable. Stronger (Britney Spears song) is about the single, with a tiny bit of information about the song. Here, only the single is notable. This is all as it should be.

These would be my suggestions to improve this guideline:

This guideline should probably replace the title Albums with Albums, singles and other recordings, and replace the title Songs with Songs and other compositions. That would be more comprehensive and logical, and would end the confusion that started this discussion.

The section on compositions should suggest that information about non-notable compositions should appear in either the article about the composer or the article about the most famous recording of the composition (i.e., the single or album), or both. The section on recordings should suggest that information about non-notable singles be added to the article about the song, or the article about the recording artist, or to the article about (the most famous) album it is included in, or all three. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go a little further. Simply replace Album and Single with Recording, Performance or Session. Notability for assembling several recordings in a package (or worse, a re-release under a new label) is, to my mind, bogus. Song should be reserved for the composition. Under Somewhere Over the Rainbow one expects to learn about the composition. Of course that should include sections on notable performers (Garland), performances (Carnegie Hall, Baum's movie Wizard of Oz...), recordings, etc. Under Judy Garland one expects to see discussion of that song, it's milestone marks in her career, etc. Under Wizard of Oz one expects to see the songs, the performers, the dates of the recording sessions and film shoots, perhaps even the various release formats (35mm, 70mm, Beta, VHS, DVD, Bittorrent,...) But we don't need a separate article on her performance as rendered in each format.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly support CharlesGillinghams proposal, it makes perfect sense to me and would help clarify the confusion between "song" and "single". However I would not go as far as LeadSongDog suggests in his first sentence. "Recording, performance or session" is in my opinion not equivalent to "Albums, singles and other recordings". An album (or even single, The Beach Boys' Good Vibrations immediately comes into mind) is often recorded over many sessions; a performance is often a live rendering. No, I don't think it is the same thing. – IbLeo (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading my above, I see it was a bit ambiguous. It wasn't my intent that Recording, Performance or Session were equivalent terms to each other, but that one or another of the three would suffice to encapsulate most of the article types we would want, in a way that album and single don't quite do. The point is not that the three terms are the same, but rather that they are not independently notable. Would we really want separate articles for Good Vibrations (first session), Good Vibrations (second session) etc? I think the topic would warrant at most a section in the Good Vibrations (recording) article.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Maybe I wasn't clear either :-) I actually didn't think you meant "recording", "performance" and "session" are equivalent. They are not, and I believe we agree on that. However, I would say that the article Good Vibrations should be about the song (i.e. composition) rather than the recording. It should of course contain the story of The Beach Boys single which is obviously the most notable recording of that song (which it actually does). If any of the particular recording sessions were notable, I agree it should also be contained in that article (which is actually the case). Let's say that U2 recorded this song and released as a single and it became a hit. Then I would include that single into the article as well. If Barbara Streisand performed the song on the top of the Apple building, that would probably also be notable enough to go into the article. So yes, "recording", "performance" and "session" can each make a song notable, but I would still put that information into the article about the song – not in articles of their own. It's getting late - I hope I make sense. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My article on The Tuna Helpers was previosuly speedily deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. It was a poor article, only one paragraph and not doing much other than noting who performed on the second album. Please let me know if the current article fails to meet notability criteria, and what I can do to better assert notability, as some of the sources are as published on the band's site, though I used external references whenever possible. I'm checking with Adrienne about citing her orientation, because the info is on her personal MySpace page, which she doesn't post on her top friends for either her band or solo performer pages, and I feel this would be a violation without her OK. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

I have a concern about the section in bold, It seems pretty vague, what's a scene? how big a city? In my opinion this whole criteria is redundant as the only way to to prove this is to have sources which would qualify under criteria 1 anyway. --neon white talk 05:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's vague, but I don't think it's redundant with #1. I've seen articles (can't say specifically musical) deleted at AfD because the sources were too local in nature. I would interpret this criterion as saying that this is okay if those regional sources are documenting that the band is of unique notability within that locality. Frankly, I doubt that would come up a lot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original point of it was that, if a field like Azerbaijani hip hop is notable, at least the one most prominent representative of that style is probably notable, even if there's no other reason for it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The same principles of notability that apply to songs should not apply to singles.

Singles, as defined here on Wikipedia, are "[...] a song usually extracted from a current or upcoming album to promote the album," but the methods that singles are technically distributed says "[...] packaged as "single" records with one or two other songs and sold before the release of the album," completely redundant.

If a single is released as a "single" record, that technically means it's more of an album than just a song in itself, because it's released usually with a few other songs and has it's own track listing. In a practical manner, singles are usually released as physical CDs, they usually have their own jewel case, lyric booklet, CD, and their own track listing. Therefore, I think we need a new policy for notability on singles, as WP:MUSIC#SONGS doesn't seem to be a good judgment of these separate packages and articles for singles are often made as articles for songs, and not the singles themselves. In other words, a lot of articles are redundant for saying that the article is about a single, but then making the article out about a song or titling it about a song (for example: Psychosocial (song)), and that renders the "single" un-notable, simply because the song that's the main focus of the article, isn't notable. The song isn't, but the single itself, track listing and all, might be, so we need a new policy.

We need new policies that cover singles, and not just songs, as I have just proven that these are two very different things. dude527 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Is there some reason that WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS should not apply to singles? It seems based on your argument that it should. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I think something like that should be the standard for singles. Not WP:MUSIC#SONGS, but WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, or maybe even create a new category for specifically singles? dude527 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that a new category would be perceived as instruction creep. I'm not sure it's necessary, unless you have in mind proposing some highly specific criteria that would only apply to singles. What did you have in mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't. I'm not a definitive authority. :) I myself would apply WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS to them. It seems like you would as well. Based on the conversation three threads above this one, there are varying opinions on this. Stage one of any proposal is probably specifying which you propose should govern and working from there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(exdent) We have some undiscussed grey here.
For openers, we have performers challenged for not meeting the two albums on a major label criteria because they have one album and one EP. If a single with a b-side is, in effect, an "album", certainly an EP is as well.
Immediately following that is the idea that an actual album plus a single (now called an "album") is two "albums" (though the single is "from the album").
Next, some singles are nothing but the song. A digital-only single might be just that one song and nothing else. But here we are considering a new definition. For RIAA certification, a 7" 45rpm is the same single as a cassette single, CD single, 12" single, digital-only single, etc. which may have various b-sides/bonus tracks on the various forms. But we're now going to consider a single to be, essentially, an "album" under some as yet undecided circumstances. Is a digital-only single consisting of one song a "single"? Currently, it might be. This discussion might decide that the industry/RIAA considers it a single, but wikipedia does not.
Finally, we aren't entirely clear on when a song becomes a single. Certainly, there are clear-cut instances: an album is coming out, radio is serviced with the first cut, MTV gets a video, stores have a single for sale, etc. Other times, it isn't so clear. Maybe there's radio service (AOR often gets deeper cuts than Top 40) but no physical release and the individual song can be downloaded apart from the album. Is that "single" akin to an "album"? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why we need some middle ground. WP:MUSIC#SONGS obviously isn't cutting it for every single single that is released, yet you pointed out the obvious flaws in judging it by WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. We need a middle ground. A point that's accurate judgment for every single. dude527 (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You raise some good points there, Mdsummermsw. If we were to specify that single notability is determined by the same criteria applied to albums, we would probably also need to specify that this does not mean singles are albums as that applies to the notability of a musician or ensemble. That said, the current definition of notability for albums seems to me to be applicable to "singles" anyway, since it boils down pretty much to: "Is the band notable? Is there independent coverage? If yes to both, then an article may be appropriate, provided sufficient information to sustain a separate article exists." I would think when there is no physical release, you'd be discussing "promo-only", which by the album criteria is generally not notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the criteria applied to albums is also valid for singles, yet the points made above make me question if I consider a single to be an actual album. dude527 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that this a serious problem, though correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't really matter, does it? If a single meets one of the album criteria, it's probably notable; if it meets one of the song criteria, it's also probably notable, I think. I see "assigning" singles to one category or the other as a pointless exercise in semantics. The instructions on this page should perhaps be modified to make that more clear, but I don't see any reason to make any major changes. Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we're doing, minor changes. But singles can't be judged by both categories, so we have to, in one way or another, make it a bit more precise, where singles go. This is to keep Wikipedia clean of articles that don't belong, and to make sure articles that do belong, stay. It is important, because Wikipedians are perfectionists, and we can't look at one thing and be able to judge it by two separate categories, because then if it failed one, but met the other, it could stay. We need the alternative of clarifying the standards by which singles are judged, because the current system for it, is not effecient by any means. It's just too confusing for users to make an article, have it get deleted because it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS, but then see some other article, with less notability and information, and see that it passed simply because it's artist was notable. That's a little confusing but if you get what I'm saying, great, and you see why we need an alternative. dude527 (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As currently written, an album by a notable act is, by default, notable. If a single is a song, it falls under WP:MUSIC#SONGS and is, by default, not notable unless other conditions are met (i.e., it has charted, won a major award or been recorded by more than one notable act. - Mdsummermsw (talk)

But, judging by the comments made above and other Wikipedia stipulations, that seems to be your own judgment and not actual rules. We need actual rules for this stuff. dude527 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I think it should be more about digital, and physical CD releases then the number of tracks. dude527 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone mind taking a look at all the new pages created by User:Hip Hop is Alive? I don't think most of them reach the notability threshold, but I'm not an expert here; if they are indeed not notable, I'd appreciate someone prodding or AfDing them.

Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started to nominate several articles that list B-sides and unreleased material for deletion.

I have been successful in deleting/merging with Garbage B-sides and Coldplay's b-sides. Perhaps there could be more discussion in this policy on the notability of articles that deal with unreleased material and B-sides. I believe strongly that these are not notable. ASCAP and BMI searches yield plenty of song titles that bands have not released, but this does not make them notable. I feel that my current AfD's (ABBA unreleased songs, Kylie Minogue's leaked material, Björk b-sidesand List of unreleased Spice Girls songs) are being hampered by fan pride. A policy change would help in clarity, or at least some discussion on this, would make it clear in my mind whether it is worth nominating these kind of articles for deletion. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of b-sides and unreleased content should be merged into that artists discography, or the correlating album's track list. dude527 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:N#SONG, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts,". Is there a specif regulation as to how high or long a song has to chart to be deemed meet Wikipedia's Notability standards? Given there are hundreds of songs that chart each month, does that mean that each of these songs can perhaps merit their own article? I'm currently involved in a discussion over whether to merge No More Sorrow (charted at 124 on Billboard 100) into talk:Minutes to Midnight (album), on the basis that the song does not assess much notability, and does not have much verifiable content. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any song that has charted, and has enough verifiable information to merit it's own article, is noteworthy. If there's a small amount of verifiable information, but the song charted, then it's generally not notable. dude527 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, we've gotten the ideas conflated, causing no end of confusion. At least in the guideline, we need to disambiguate the concepts of Song (recording), Song (performance), Song (arrangement), Song (orchestration) and Song (composition). The vast majority of performances and recordings of a notable composition will not themselves be notable. Different orchestrations or voicings will almost never be notable, (except where they radically depart from prior ones, e.g. the early uses of string orchestration in rock by the Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc.) But virtually any surviving compositions by major composers (say, Maurice Ravel or Irving Berlin) and any compositions widely re-arranged or widely recorded (covered) would be notable on their own as compositions. Quantifying the criteria may or may not be helpful. Comments? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a supergroup have any special circumstances within the scope of WP:MUSIC? Especially since in most cases they are formed of otherwise notable musicians, but usually do one performance at all. I bring this up alongside a AFD for Automatic Baby. ViperSnake151 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see a need for any special consideration for supergroups. Some, like the God awful GTR, are clearly notable (and, in this case, clearly foul). In other cases, such as Automatic Baby, "... it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects." There's precious little to say about this one performance, and it easily fits elsewhere. Will anyone who has never heard of U2/REM/etc. be looking for info on this "band"? Doubtful, and there's nothing to say about them, other than this song. A redirect covers the unlikely search term. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit disturbed that the demos for bands are not normally considered notable. I can see why mixtapes and bootlegs are not notable unless covered in third party sources, but a demo that is officially produced by the band should be considered notable. (now, this is assuming that the band is notable.) The current wording is

Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

My version would read like this:
Individual articles on albums need not recieve independent coverage if and only if the band has been deemed notable. Mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Demo albums are considered notable if the band has been deemed notable.

Now, here is my reasoning. If the band is notable, then the albums should not really need to have a lot of independent coverage. I work in the field of black metal and most bands in that genre do not recieve the biggest attention online or in text. I think, that if a band has recieved favorable coverage, then every single album by that band need not recieve individual coverage. The band has already been established as notable so the albums should be notable in that sense. I think that demo albums should be the same as regular albums in notability issues. A demo is the starting point of the band. It is released to the public to see how it does. It basically gives a preview of what is to come. That, in my opinion, should be notable. I also understand that my wording, my new proposal, may not be the best. If you think of a better one, I'd be happy to hear it. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't know enough about what you mean by "demo album" to comment on that. Few demo albums, surely, would gain commercial or public release, so would fail to be notable. How is a demo album different to a demo song? Both are rough, unfinished versions produced only as part of the creative process rather than to be part of an artist's catalogue. If my understanding of what you're discussing is correct, then I oppose demo anythings being classed as notable.

On your other point, that all albums by notable artists be deemed notable, I agree. But this was argued vehemently at the Album notability discussion above, without consensus. I think it really ended in a stalemate between inclusionists and exclusionists. The whole argument, and some of the purist attitudes by deletionists, wore me out so much I decided I couldn't be bothered creating any more album articles. Grimhim (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A demo album is a collection of songs put onto a format to be released to the public. Single demo songs normally aren't released on their own format, but are more likely limited to online release. Undeath (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by 'demo album'? I see this quite a lot in articles about metal bands, and it seems to have a different meaning to other types of demo. Demos are usually 'rough' versions of tracks that later appear on released albums, singles, etc., and demos themselves are not usually released - they're also rarely notable. Unsigned bands commonly sell demos until they get a record deal. With metal bands, the 'demo album' seems to be a self-released album more than anything else. Is that correct? I think the general guidelines about demos refer to the 'rough' versions that are not intended for release.--Michig (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to most metal bands, a demo album is self released due to a lack of money. Some bands release demos after a full length is released. I've noticed that some demos are being tagged with PROD. I have been undoing that until a consensus is reached here. I am not over exagerating when I say there are hundreds of demo album pages on wikipedia. The time it took to create those pages ammounts to something quite substantial. And, if anything, look at the fact that a demo album is still an album. If this is an encyclopedia the band would have a listing for it, and it's releases. A demo is an official release. I don't like the idea of having pages for bootlegs, but a demo is essential. For example, the demo Go Fuck Your Jewish "God" by Watain started the band. It's a relatively well known demo. (I have it, and I think it sucks, but it started the band) For fans of the music, and for people wanting to learn about the band, the demos tell the story. They show the progression of the band. Taking away a demo page gives a gap in the discography. Another example would be Behemoth's transition from black metal to blackened death metal/death metal. The early demos of the band were strictly black metal, but now, if you listen to them, they have changed completely. If you were un-educated towards that particular band, you would now know they were black metal. The demos need to be deemed notable if the band is notable, regardless of coverage. They tell a far too vital story for people needing the information. Undeath (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and demos themselves are not usually released - they're also rarely notable

I have to disagree. Most demos are released, but as a limited edition. Being notable or not is the issue with wikipedia, and please see my above post in regards to that. Demos are essential to the story of how a band began, developed, and, in some cases, ends. Also, not all demos are rough tracks. The rehearsal demo from Dimmu Borgir is a great sounding tape. (one of my rarities in my collection) Undeath (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll type this out too while I remember. If a demo is non notable, why is an EP considered notable? Some EPs are basically a demo with a different standpoint to it. Also, a lot of full length albums by notable bands recieve hardly any coverage, but, in my opinion, that does not make them non notable. I whole hartedly agree that any official release, demo included, by a band that has established notability, should be deemed notable on wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Demo' obviously has a different meaning in metal circles to elsewhere. Most demo recordings, in music generally, are not released nor intended for release - they're just (relatively) cheaply recorded versions of songs for the purpose of getting approval and budget from a record company to record them properly. If we're talking about self-released albums of studio recordings that a band have paid for themselves, then that's different because they are released, but I think there needs to be some evidence of independent coverage to have an article on them. Without such coverage, what can be said about the album apart from a tracklisting and release date without getting into WP:OR territory?--Michig (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that the "Jewish God" demo has much claim to notability under the guidelines on the project page. Why not create a "Demos" section in the Watain article and list them there? Grimhim (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this. It is a demo released by a band called The Mandrake. It was released to the public, and this one did attract some reviews. However, at it's inception, the watain demo did not attract any attention. Today, though, it has. Just a simple google search shows this. I don't know if a separate version of notability should be established for metal bands. As of now, the way I see it, a metal band's version of a demo is a released piece of media that was not recorded at full potential. (i.e. funds aren't there) I don't know if we could amend the notability standards to incorporate a different section just for metal bands. I have many, many, many demos by metal bands. (over 1200) If other genres release things differently, I don't know, but when it comes to metal, and it's subgenres, (especially black and death), a demo is released. Undeath (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this could be a new proposal. At Rate Your Music, a demo is normally falling under the category of an EP. This can be seen here. Maybe, and this is again me talking mainly about metal bands since they release their demos, we could put a longtype on the infobox that states demo. It would look something like this :

Once again, most metal bands do release their demos. (most release them on tapes, but some are on Cds or LPs) Undeath (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What concerns me a little is how broad our definition of 'demo' is. I think this should be worked out on a case-by-case basis- a lot of demos are never released or even mentioned to the public, and are strictly a behind-the-scenes thing. Conversely, other demos effectively become albums in their own right, and are only different because they were created in a slightly different way. I strongly oppose a blanket inclusion of demos, and feel that this should be done on a case-by-case basis. We do not have automatic notability of songs, music videos or even singles, and some demos are a single track, where as some singles (off the top of my head, Nine Inch Nails and Combichrist singles spring to mind) are as long as your average LP, and even longer than the shorter ones. As such, I do feel that a lot of the basically-an-album-but-sounds-more-grim-to-call-a-demo releases do deserve articles, but that many demos do not. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to agree with Undeath. Demos are not rarities in heavy metal music. The definition of demo provided in the wikipedia article on the subject does not really apply to heavy metal. We are not referring here to recordings that are made to get a recording deal with some labels - many heavy metal demos are already released on record labels. What we are referring to here are releases that are commercially distributed to the wider public. Like many other fans of heavy metal music, I have plenty of demo recordings in my collection. We can legitimately purchase many demo recordings of heavy metal bands when we can do no such thing for more mainstream pop or rock music. It is not uncommon to find professional reviews of demo recordings such as this or this. Look up a heavy metal band's discography on or offline and you'll find that their demos are generally listed alongside their albums or singles releases. Popular online databases like Rockdetector and Encyclopaedia Metallum list demo recordings. They even provide links for visitors to purchase the demo recordings where available. The latter even feature fan reviews of demo recordings. The fact that some of these demo recordings can attract multiple reviews from different fans indicate that they are quite commonplace in the heavy metal community. For instance, Pure Fucking Armageddon has nine different fan reviews here. I am fully aware that fan reviews are not reliable sources but that's not the point here. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that demo recordings in heavy metal are commonly treated as ordinary releases.
• Other than semantics and length, there's really not much of a difference between a self-released album and a self-released demo for heavy metal. If a band only has self-released recordings, then they are probably not notable enough for wikipedia. But if a band is notable, then wikipedia policy suggests that their all their previous self-released albums may be treated as notable as well - so why not, as Undeath suggests, their self-released demos when these are commonly treated as normal, ordinary releases? The thing to remember here, to emphasise again and again, is that we're not referring to the sort of demo recordings that one find in other genres of music that are never intended to be commercially distributed to the public but only shopped around across record labels to get a recording deal. We are referring to demo recordings that are meant to be released to the public. In fact, many demo recordings in heavy metal are actually released on (mostly minor) record labels: eg. Hiidentorni, Obey the Will of Hell, Promo 2002, etc. Likewise, many demos that were originally self-released were later re-released by record labels: eg. Fhtagn nagh Yog-Sothoth, Satanas Tedeum, Epilogue, etc. Some bands even released demos even after they are already well-known (in their respective scenes): for instance, Einherjer and Horna.
• Of course, if a band only has a demo recording, then they would not be notable for wikipedia. A band with multiple albums released might not be notable either. But if a band is notable, then policy here on wikipedia indicates that all the previous albums that they have released are similarly notable. What Undeath is suggesting here is that we extend this policy to cover the demo recordings for heavy metal bands because unlike other genres of music, demo recordings of heavy metal bands are commonly treated as normal, ordinary releases. I do believe it would be pointless having an article for a demo - or even an album - if all we can have is just a track listing but if (verifiable) information can be written about the release, then it really should not matter whether it was commercially released as an album, single, EP or demo. As long as it is commercially distributed. I would suggest then a rewording somewhere along the line of In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released recordings may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia if there are sufficient verifiable information to expand the article beyond a mere track listing. I feel that it should not matter what format these recordings are nor should it matter whether they were commercially successful or not. I feel that the only thing that should matter, as long as the band is notable, is that the recording is commercially released and that there is sufficient verifiable information that can be written about the recording. We should not have to demonstrate that the demo recordings from these heavy metal bands are notable in the same way that we should not need to demonstrate that album recordings from the same bands are notable. That's my two cents. --Bardin (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to state that I strongly oppose both suggested changes to the WP:MUSIC criteria, and believe others are strongly exaggerating the notability of these demos - most only have a limited run of 100-200 copies. I'd also welcome the input of other editors here, as opposed to only a handful. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Important here, I think, is the opening sentence of the section: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." That general notability guideline says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." If it meets that guideline, it doesn't matter if it's a demo or an album. As the current album guideline says, demos "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." If it doesn't meet that guideline, it doesn't matter if it's a demo or an album. "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." A change to the album guidelines to grant official releases of notable bands blanket approval would need to either remove or modify that opening sentence, as otherwise the requirement for independent, reliable sourcing is the base test for everything. (And I really think that a change of that magnitude would need to be publicized at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remember that not all full-length albums recieve their share of coverage. For example, when Horna released Kohti Yhdeksän Nousua, it attracted no attention at all. It wansn't until their second album was there any information available. And, even if demos are limited in production, they still are a production of the band. If the band is notable, then each and every work by the band should be notable. It's that way for authors, why shouldn't it be that way for bands? Also, I just wanted to state this again, In the metal world, a demo is normally not a collection of songs not intended for a release. They are "rough" because of the money issue. Most, if not all, metal demos are released through the band's own finances.Undeath (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that way for authors. Wikipedia:Notability (books) lists the specific circumstances for which books are considered notable. Point #5 is a special allowance, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable", and it is illuminated by a footnote that says, "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study." This is not going to apply to the vast majority of authors. It wouldn't apply to most musicians, either. Otherwise, the criteria for books is (1) multiple, non-trivial, independent sourcing (with at least some intended for general audience); (2) major literary award; (3) adaptation into motion picture or nationally televised form; or (4) Subject of instruction at multiple schools. The book guideline also indicates that "In some situations, where the book itself does not fit the established criteria for notability, or if the book is notable but the author has an article in Wikipedia, it may be better to feature material about the book in the author's article, rather than creating a separate article for that book." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think that if the band is notable, then the works by the band are notable. A demo, if released, is basically an EP minus the funding. I think, that if a demo is released, especially in the metal genre/the metal sub genres, and the band is notable, then the demo is notable. Most of, if not all of, the metal bands here that have released demo albums have some sort of coverage on that demo. It just takes some digging. I'd be happy to find sources for the ones that need them. But, if it is a valid release, if there is proof of it's release, then it should have it's own article. Horna is a great example. They released demos even after their first release. In the metal world, a demo is basically a non-record label funded album. I might put a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to change the wording for a blanket proposal. I do believe that if the band has been deemed notable, then their releases are automatically notable, regardless of individual coverage. Undeath (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be a matter for WP:VPR, then, as it would be quite a change from existing practice. You might want to put a note there drawing attention to the discussion here? Although given the length of the discussion, I'd be inclined to create a subheader. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a new suggestion. I think it is very logical and could be very satisfactory for both sides: A demo is not notable, unless it contains one or more songs that have not been released another way (studio album, compilation). This just keeps all the "notable" demos, and blocks the "non-notable" ones. I hope this helps.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the criteria needs changing, and am in agreement with what Moonriddengirl has said. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I pretty much agree with Moonriddengirl too - there's no consensus that every recording (or every album, or every single) by a notable band can be assumed to be notable, so there's certainly no consensus for every (or any) demo (in any sense of the word) to be notable. If there's multiple independent sources on it, go ahead and make an article, there will be a consensus to keep it, regardless of if it's a "demo" in any sense. Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of applying notability to all officially released albums by notable artists. However, as noted above, this has been discussed at length but was opposed by many editors. The suggestion we're discussing is really a resurrection and extension of just that issue: (a) to deem as notable all albums by notable artists and (2) include demo albums within that policy. So long as consensus on the first issue is lacking, there can't be a change to the second issue. My vote, however, would be to support a change to deem as notable all official releases by notable artists, but oppose a change to deem as notable all demo albums by notable artists. Demo albums would need to be established as notable only by sufficient independent coverage. Grimhim (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. Suddenly, we'll get thousands of articles on all the pathetic singles that never charted that a lot of bands release. I may support all official, full-length releases receiving articles (provided there is at least some information on them, probably not counting limited editions- I haven't fully thought this through) but trying to squeeze the guidelines to get articles on obscure and unimportant releases (any genuinely important release will have received coverage) is a bad idea. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How about a new wording to my original proposal. Demo albums are considered notable if they contain tracks that were not released on a full length album. Undeath (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. No sort of album gets special allowance to have an article written. All albums must meet The requirement to have independent reliable coverage. Until this changes, demo albums (whatever that means for any given genre) are no more or less notable than any other type of album. And since you asked, your latest request doesn't make sense at all. Some band on the edge of notability gets an article. There is no press on any of their three lackluster albums, but one of them was a demo which had several songs that weren't good enough to be remade for one of their "real" albums, so that one gets an article? Besides all that, how do you define a demo album? -Freekee (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A demo album, as define by me, is an album that lacked sufficient funds to be made into a studio album. I.e., the band did not have enough money to release a pro printed cassette, cd, or other format nor did they require the funds to record their music professionally. Honestly, if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, then each album, no matter of coverage, should have it's own page if the band is notable. The albums describe the band/gives the person seeking information answers. Let me explain. If someone knew about a band, but didn't know the name of the band, but knew the album, they could look up the album to find the band. If they did wanted to find an album by a certain band, and they knew the band, but they did not know the album, and there was no page for the album/no link to it from the band page, then they will not find out about the album from the encyclopedia. I know that might have got a bit strange to read, but try and stick with it. Undeath (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can still redirect the title of any recording to the article on the band that made it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A demo tape, by definition, is a demonstration of a bands music create for that purpose. It isn't an album. Notability isn't inherited so we cannot deem all albums notable unless an artist is of sufficient importance. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a directory of releases (discogs.com is for that). A cassette that a band once gave away at a gig can hardly have unquestionable notability. --neon white talk 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to state that irrelevant of an artist's notability, all albums are not deemed notable as "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines". LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Seconding what has been said before by Moonriddengirl and others. I'd like to add: The purpose of Wikipedia is not to build a database of all recordings that bands have ever made. Leave that to allmusic and others. The recordings/releases should first be described in the band's article - supposing they are relevant of course -, and the search box will enable users to find them there, if they don't know the band's name. Only when an album has been discussed in detail in independent sources, so that enough material is available, we should have a separate article about the album. It is often assumed that enough sources are available for full-length released albums of notable bands. (Seeing that so many album articles are unsourced, however, I'm not actually convinced that the assumption is reasonable.) But for demo tapes that were never released - for lack of funds or whatever - you'd have to give a very convincing argument to show that substantial independent sources are present, so many that the material can't be covered in the band article. The best, of course, would be to name the sources. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a somewhat older topic but this seems to mainly be about metal/death metal and how "demos" are different. I would disagree with much of this topic, as far a demos and what is what. Overall a demo is something that an artist did in hopes of getting gigs, reviews and a record deal. That still holds true except now, because of the internet, almost any type of recording can be placed out there for the masses. Now there are "demos" that are nothing more than someone signing karaoke, and if that is the case it should not be mentioned, or allow someone to get a Wicki entry. Also a normal (professional) demo was only a few songs, a "three song demo" was most common as that is what A&R people request. However it is also common for an artist, once they are signed, to have to present songs for their albums - or "demo albums" - to the the label. While these are still demos they are often more polished than basic demos recorded pre-signing and certainly not, as described by some above, called "demos" because there was not "enough money to release a pro printed cassette, cd, or other format nor did they require the funds to record their music professionally". Likewise to simply push aside a recording because it is called a "demo" is not looking at a full picture. A great number of bands have been signed and the resulting release may become the bands "demo" for other countries. Also recording of one song may end up on a regional compilation, however at that point few people would call the track a "demo" as it is released even though it may actually have been a demo or recorded in the same manner as that artist's demo.

Outside the scope of only metal and/or death metal many recordings that were "demos" have turned up on legit releases. Dramarama released their entire demo album for "Stuck in Wonderamaland" under their pseudonym name The Bent Backed Tulips, first in Europe and then in the U.S. The Who have seen a certain amount of demos eventually released, especially demos from the Lifehouse rock opera. Christina Aguilera, who had recorded an albums worth of material before she was signed, was flying high on her hits when Just Be Free was released, under the threats of lawsuits. My point here is that as long as there have been "tape traders" an artists demos/unreleased studio tracks will find their way out and it is not exclusive to one genre. Also we live in a day and age where one can listen to songs from almost any artist, at any time, directly from that artist. Some of these are clearly "demos" while others are fully produced tracks that are simply put up on an artists website or myspace for fans to listen too. These tracks may or may not be on an upcoming album. Or, if the band in not signed, these could be tracks that could be considered "demos" however are being released to the public simply because the act isn't signed. I would go back to the original concept because overall a "demo", in any genre, is not in itself cause for notation. But I also tend to agree, genres aside, that in this day and age where "downloads" or "listens" can add up perhaps what makes a band "notable" should be slightly expanded to include things such as online sales via Snocap and IndiePendance Music and listens/downloads via an artists or labels myspace site. Soundvisions1 (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

For the most part, they'd go under WP:ORG, but there is a hint of what makes a notable independent label: "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look at this article, and comment on whether Barrios meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMG and the Times have him writing music for that horrid 1988 film, Vibes.[2][3] Certainly not something to be proud of, and only a minor indication of notability, IMO.

I don't know any Spanish, but it looks like he co-authored a book that's now out of print.[4] Again, minor notability points there.

Other than that, I see some coverage that might cobble together for a notability argument. I find him playing a lot in Atlanta (which seems moot) with some gigs across the U.S., but no coverage of a tour, per se. Since much of it is in Spanish, I would want someone who knows the language to see the sources. I don't see enough in English.

A few of the mentions don't really support notability. When a flyer promoting an event merely mentions a name in passing as one of the people there, it doesn't seem to indicate we're talking about someone people would actually be hoping to see specifically.[5][6] A Miami New Times article doesn't seem to think he's anyone worth saying anything about.[7] I found nothing mentioning the "2007 Coca-Cola Artist of the Year" award.

I don't see notability, but a few sources might convince me. Looks like some COI in the creation. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what about creating a template-like thing to Bands.I mean there is an automatic thing in the "Person" article (age --), so why don't you create a (active for -- years) automatic thing to "Band" articles?(Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That's an interesting idea. You might want to propose it at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, though. Since this is the talk page for the notability guideline, it may not be widely monitored by the members of that project. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the album section reads "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." People are using the "may" there as an excuse to create individual articles for every last album an artist has recorded, even if all it has is an infobox and a tracklist. This, to me, does not add to or improve the value of Wikipedia at all, and such articles are no better than a catalog listing. I think the section needs to be worded better, so as not to give carte blanch to infinite album creation. Yes, there is the line at the end that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting" but people immediately pounce on the "space permitting" as an excuse for why such articles can't be merged into discography (even if the artist has less than 10), and tracklistings are generally not allowed in discographies and artist pages, so people don't want to merge. So how can we reword this to better reflect that no, every album doesn't get an article just to be able to put its tracklist somewhere and just because the artist is notable. Instead, an album should have an article if it has the necessary coverage and information to provide more information about it that just release and tracklist, such as production and reception information. Thoughts? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the section starts off with "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." That incorporates WP:N by reference, and WP:N says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The albums have received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then I would guess there would usually be enough material to write more than a tracklisting? If all the coverage that exists on an album is a tracklist, then it would arguably not be "significant." Do you think that incorporation by reference is insufficient? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people skip the "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." part or they presume that the line stating "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" negates it. In a way, they do seem contradictory, as the second does not reemphasize that it must meet WP:N with significant coverage. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see two quick & easy ways to address that. First, the opening sentence might be revised as so: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Explicitly incorporating the language should give it more impact. Alternatively, the existing prose could be re-arranged: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia, but all articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." I prefer the former if either were to be implemented, since the latter gets a bit convoluted. :) I don't believe either represents instruction creep or significantly adds risk of TLDR. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think the former one is the better of the two, and makes things clearer. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it's only linguistic and doesn't change the meaning of the policy, I've been bold. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emo is currently assessed as B-Class, but it would not seem to meet the necessary criteria. The article is a solid length and reasonably well written, but has an enormous amount of unreferenced claims. I would change the rating myself (the article seems more in line with C-Class criteria) but I'm not a member of any music related wikiprojects so I'm not sure it'd be appropriate. Aurum ore (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might want to bring that one up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. I'm not a member of that project, either, or I'd be happy to help out. But this particular talk page is for the notability guideline, so I'm not sure how many members of that specific project are hanging out here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about a label, Proper Records, which appears to be a reissue-only label. I am uncertain of its inherent notability, as its notability is dependent on the significance of certain artists' releasing material through them. Any guidance here would be very helpful! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as this guideline goes, independent record labels are notable if they have "a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". This one has been around since 1996 and seems to have some notable artists in their roster. But while that might make qualify them as "one of the more important indie labels" (and it might not; the guideline doesn't address whether re-issues count) in terms of evaluating the notability of their artists, it doesn't address at all their notability in terms of deserving a separate article. This notability guideline says its topics include "artists and bands, albums, and songs." Record labels are presumably still governed by WP:ORG, which indicates (as you know) that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources."

I took the liberty of changing your single source to a "primary source" tag, since those are useless in asserting notability. I did not change your notability tag, but I would suggest you consider changing it. I really thing WP:ORG is the governing guideline in this instance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm glad you asked. I didn't even realize you could specify a notability guideline with the notability tag. :) Learn something new every day! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've seen them listed at WP:ALBUMS, but given the guidelines I suspect they belong at WP:SONG. WP:SONG hosts the single infobox, for instance. Unless it's long-play, I'd tag it {{songs}} and request assessment there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A common disagreement on Wikipedia when it comes to song articles is whether or not a particular record is notable as a single. Part of the current policy states that a song must have charted in order for it to be considered notable. I am seeking comments in regard to clearly defining the term "chart" / "charting" / "charted." Working in the music industry as a Program Director of a Top 40 radio station, I know from personal experience that the industry-accepted definition of the word "chart" is a position of #40 or better on either the Mediabase 24/7 or BDS airplay charts, which - in turn - feed data to Radio and Records for their R&R charts. The Hot 100, while useful, takes downloads into effect for its chart. I'm bringing this up because it is not uncommon for a song to be a highly-downloaded record, but never be released by the record label to radio for airplay (at least, officially). Also, it is not uncommon for a high-profile album to be released and see each song on that album be downloaded by digital music store users as they purchase that album... which inherently throws off the numbers on the Hot 100, making it seem like a record was more popular than it might have actually been.

My proposal is this - Effective at the conclusion of this RfC, the term "chart" - when used to define notablity - should relate only to airplay and not downloads. Official charts, to define airplay levels, should be Mediabase 24/7, BDS, or R&R in the United States and the corresponding national airplay charts of those countries outside of the United States. --Winger84 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Specifically, the guideline says, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." It doesn't say that they are, but that they probably are. This is not an establishing criteria but a general rule of thumb. As it notes in the section above, notability of songs & albums is governed by the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. If a song has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it's notable. If it doesn't, it isn't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but the purpose of this RfC is to clearly define the term "chart", or in relation to policy, "rank." Song X "ranking" #99 on (insert chart here) does not make it notable, but Song Y "ranking" #40 on that same chart would make it notable, under what I'm proposing. Again, I'm seeking to make the airplay charts the key, effectively eliminating the Hot 100 / etc as charts to be used for determining notability. Their use as measures of popularity is not in dispute, however. This is an issue of "notability" verus "popularity." --Winger84 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, then, actually seeking to remove the governance of WP:N over songs? As the guideline currently stands, a song that doesn't chart in any way may be notable if sufficient sources are available. A song that charts at #40 is not if (unlikely as it is) sources aren't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm proposing actually strengthens WP:N, as it applies to songs. Reliable sources would still need to exist and be cited for any song that meets the "charting" requirement that this RfC seeks to enact. If a song does not chart, under the new definition, it would exist (if, in fact, it did) as a redirect to the associated album and any notable information about that song (using the example below of an artist being sued over a song) would be covered by a brief mention in the album's article, rather than an entirely new article being created solely on the basis of that fact. --Winger84 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, in terms of practical application, it seems like mediabase is not a searchable database, as Billboard is. (Perhaps it is for registered users; perhaps it is, but the search bar is buried). That would seem to make it less than ideal You don't identify what BDS and R&R are, but I presume you mean Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems and radioandrecords.com? If so, are these searchable? How would users verify standing on these charts? In terms of on-Wiki applications, how would this affect, say, articles like Beer Barrel Polka or Helter Skelter (song) or Once in a Lifetime (Talking Heads song)? Are there real world examples of songs which meet the current notability guidelines (with significant coverage) that would not qualify? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I thought notability was defined by multiple and non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Not a pop chart. RFerreira (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there is anything that has to do with the single as facts, charting, etc. There should be an article for it. Like I created an article for "Playing with Fire" by Lil Wayne because he was sued for the record and I thought that was good fact. Also, I feel that you must have reliable sources, which has been a rule.

--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many songs which are very notable that never saw any chart action, for one reason or another. I don't think it is smart to rely too heavily on where any particular song was ranked on a national chart - and I think giving specific weight to airplay alone isn't a good idea. As radio formats are more and more fragmented and, in general, contain a smaller and smaller number of songs, it would seem to me that sales would more clearly define the "popularity" of a song, whether physical or digitally. Still, I think this is a grey area: both sales and airplay are important, and in some cases, a single seeing little or no chart action can be notable when put within the scope of the discography of a notable artist. Some very notable bands, singers, etc. have released singles that bombed, yet it makes no sense to delete a song article because it peaked at #41-or-below when all of their other singles charted higher and have an article. Additionally, I feel uneasy about defining the notability of a song based solely on the airplay component charts in the United States, particularly as other high-profile charts are based on sales not airplay, i.e. UK Singles Chart. - eo (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it has always seemed to me that much of WP:MUSIC creates artificial notability. Every album, every single, every potential album, every potential single, ends up with an article. If there isn't significant coverage in independent, reliable sources what can we really say about a single/album? Song names, length, unsourced release dates... basic catalog stuff. We quickly degenerate into discussions about a song on a band's poorly documented forthcoming album that might be a single because KROQ played it, so it might be released, so it might chart, so let's give it an article full of cruft. IMO, no substantial coverage = no article, substantial coverage = article PERIOD. Anything else invites articles about pebbles stuck in my sneaker that, gosh, might be notable someday. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Songs such as "Playing with Fire" by Lil Wayne should have articles. Poorly documented album that might be released shouldn't have articles. Just a release date is not good enough. I believe if a album track charts then it deserves an article with logical information. The track shouldn't not appear in the singles chronology but over excited fan will add it. Charmed36 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the RFC here, as the user has retired. It can be restored, of course, if he returns. Or if somebody else wants to champion his proposal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:MUSIC#Songs should be clarified. It currently states "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

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

I propose clarification, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable, but a separate article for a notable song is only appropriate when the article meets one of the three previous rules and enough verifiable material is contained in the article to warrant a reasonably detailed article."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A main article like "Compositions of Mozart" or even use the existing List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, needs to be created and the individual articles merged with that. Nick carson (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The sixth criterion for musicians and ensembles based on having a member who was once in another notable band is very weak. If notability is not inherited, it certainly does not swap over from one band to the next. It should at least be tightened to the point that the linking members are notable themselves. I've made a crude edit in that sense, but refinements or comments are welcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to change it, though I'm short on time at the moment to think about wording. :) After all, you take a hot 70s band, give it a guitarist for one album in '97, is that guitarist's subsequent solo project going to be notable? Even if they only play in bowling alleys? And is that bowling alley band's keyboardist's early projects also notable? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it the more I am inclined to drop it altogether. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section has sucked for a while now. Is the bowling alley band notable? As currently written, yes. In a rational world, the bowling alley band would be notable if and only if it were the subject of substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree wholeheartedly with Tikiwont's edits. The criterion should really be along the lines of individual notability commencing with the band/act/ensemble that first achieved notability. Spoilydoily (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your change. I always disliked that notability could be inherited that far. On a similar note, C10 states that a musician/ensemble is notable if they created work that was included in a notable compilation album. Since "in general" albums "may have sufficient notability" if the musician/ensemble is notable, a duo like Sharp & Smooth (AfD) could be considered notable since they contributed a song to a compilation by PvD. "Members of two notable bands are generally notable" suffers from the same problem – if the two bands only inherited notability themselves this shouldn't be applicable, per common sense.
I would suggest that notability can generally only be inherited from a topic that is directly notable per WP:NOTE, quite similar to the change you made to G6. This would prevent daisy-chaining them together.
In principle, I find G6 and the other criteria I mentioned useful. Maybe it should be clarified in WP:MUSIC that if a topic isn't notable per WP:NOTE, it's preferrable to redirect to a section in the article notability was inherited from. A seperate article should only be created if this isn't feasible, typically because there are several potential articles where that section should go. Amalthea^Talk 18:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does say use redirects. --neon white talk 10:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the issue of dropping it all together. See my post about The Iron Maidens below. Phantom Blue fit the guidelines because they had a release on a semi-big indy Shrapnel Records and then one release on a major, Geffen Records. But how notable they are beyond that is debatable as they were dropped from Geffen Records, went through line up changes, and put out three albums on their own label. So one has to look at the overall picture and ask: "Because a person was in one of several line ups of a band that was 'notable' does that make the next band, or the one after, that that person is in also 'notable'?" I would say no. How many people remember a band called Balls Of Fire? It was Peter Criss's band after he left KISS. On a good night they played to 50 people in small clubs around Hollywood and North Hollywood. Never got an album deal and hardly got noticed. Notable because of Peter Criss? Yes. Notable as a band? No. The band is not even mentioned in the Peter Criss article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline may have a weak spot when it comes to songs. In keeping with the guideline's suggestion that notable artists recording a piece makes a song notable, large numbers of song stubs contain nothing more than 1-3 sentences plus a laundry list of recording artists, all uncited.

Here are just a few examples from 1946:

• "If This Isn't Love"
• "For You, For Me, For Evermore"
• "The Girl That I Marry"
• "Just A-Sittin' and A-Rockin'"
• "Rumors Are Flying"

Three serious problems result.

1. These articles are magnets for violations of WP:COPYRIGHT through posting of lyrics and contributory copyright infringement links to sites that illegally host lyrics, chords, performances, etc.
2. Many of these articles aren't watchlisted, so violations of WP:COPYRIGHT go unchecked for long periods of time and other violations accumulate (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc.)
3. When a notable article does get started that falls outside suggested parameters, well-meaning editors challenge its notability.

For an example of the third problem see "Frog Legs Rag": it was never on the charts because popular music charts didn't come into existence until several decades later, wasn't recorded by notable artists because piano rags often weren't recorded. Yet multiple third party sources confirm it is a major work by one of the three most important composers of ragtime.

So our current guideline wording contributes to a bad situation: thousands of nearly worthless stubs from the 1940s onward (I'm not kidding about that number) and a serious shortage in coverage of any sort for popular music of earlier periods. "Frog Legs Rag" is one of only six entries in Category:1906 songs. Comments and suggestions are welcome; there has to be a better way to handle this. Durova^Charge! 10:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is a problem with the guideline, per se. The first principle of songs is "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That would make "Frog Legs Rag" a notable song regardless of charting. The other songs may not be, even if they did chart or have been performed by multiple artists, as the guideline note that they "are probably notable". In the absence of principle one, they aren't. The guideline also says, "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

That said, I am concerned that subsectioning the "Albums, singles and songs" section may have been a bad idea. (I believe it was most recently split here, as a unilateral move. I made it a subsection later since the split separated it from that governing principle.) Twice now editors have placed shortcuts to the subsection rather than the section, which may indicate that they aren't noticing the first principle...which is the most important one. Do you believe that returning them to one section would help address your concerns by making that first principle more obvious? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, particularly since albums are largely tied to the invention of 33RPM records in the late 1940s. It would be useful to add a note that for periods before the mid-twentieth century, third party sourcing should be the primary consideration because chart rankings and recordings may not exist. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back into one section, since the division was made unilaterally and has demonstrably caused confusion since. As my second edit, I restructured for clarity and added information on future singles. But third party sourcing should already be the primary consideration, even for singles after the mid-twentieth century. The current sentence on charts and whatnot is simply meant to list examples of material that may be notable, not to provide exceptions to the primary rule. :) What about rewording this, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." to "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups may have enough secondary coverage to meet notability requirements." Any thoughts on that? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occurs to me (belatedly) that an alternative to reuniting them is simply to fully separate them and restate the governing principle in each section: "All articles on albums must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and ""All articles on singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC doesn't specify any specific criteria for proving notability of soundtrack albums. Do these still fall under the general criteria ? For information, I'm referring in particular to Category:Resident Evil soundtracks - most (if not all) of these articles seem to be basic track listings and, according to precedent, without assertation of notability these should be being redirected/merged etc. into the main articles. However, this may be contentious due to the time the articles have been around, and the number of editors. CultureDrone (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All albums are governed by the same principle: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." But if they're only basic track listings, the guideline suggests merging even if they are notable. :) If you think it might be contentious, perhaps a merge proposal could help establish consensus or an RFC? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a two part question really but this is a good place to start. In reading the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" section it does not seem that The Iron Maidens really meet any of the criteria. The second part of the question has to do with the sources cited on the main article page. At first glance they seem ok but when you actually look at them they are either reprints of press releases, information from their official website or information posted on their official message board. They also have separate articles for both of their CDs, The Iron Maidens: World's Only Female Tribute to Iron Maiden and The Root of All Evil (EP) as well as their Live CD/DVD, Route 666 (album). These are all indy releases put out on their own label. I see that USER:Metagraph asked if the main article was notable in May 2008 but there was not any response and they never posted again. Also each member seems the have their own page as well - and yes, it can be argued that Linda McDonald was a member of a notable band but looking at the big picture - without any NPOV sources listed and DIY releases only (Plus being a tribute band) - do they really meet enough criteria for having so many article about them and their releases? Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That is one heavily nurtured article. A search of google news confirms press, here. (There may be more; to help eliminate false hits, I paired the band's name with "tribute.") It seems they've had press coverage as far away as Turkey (here) and El Salvador (looks like a brief, brief mention in La Prensa Gráfica, here) which certainly confirms the "widespread" part, anyway. :) They're also referenced in one book, here, though it's hardly extensive coverage. ("tribute" notwithstanding, the other one is a false hit.) Is it enough to meet the notability guidelines? Ultimately, that's always down to the community to decide. Given the hits I came up with, even without reading deeply, I would not nominate it for WP:AfD it myself, but I know some contributors who probably would. I don't know if consensus would come down on the site of notable or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then should the guidelines be modified to say that an artist or band can be notable for being a cover band and or tribute act? The articles you mention seem to be about tribute acts overall, not just one band. I guess another way to look at is is like this: Many artists have played all over the world but may not get any press. They may have put out their own albums but may not be considered notable albums. In short they would not meet the guidelines as currently written. In the case of The Iron Maidens, because they are not doing their own material, can be notable enough for their own article and their self produced albums, which do not seem to really meet any of the current guidelines, are considered notable enough to have their own articles as well. As an aside if you follow the links to each band member some of them all seem to be notable only because they are a member of The Iron Maidens as well as members of other tribute acts. A quick looksee turns up Hell's Belles (band) (stub), Cheap Chick (deleted Page), ThundHerStruck (deleted page), Zepparella (Deleted page) and Lez Zeppelin as far as "all female" tribute acts go. Michael White & The White have a minor article when compared to The Iron Maidens yet during the 80's they were considered the premiere Led Zeppelin tribute act because they had Robert Plants endorsement. Randy Hansen and The Fab Faux both have pages. Fairly well known male cover bands such as Strange Days, Blizzard of OZ, Believer, Mean Streets do not have one. Most surprising is that the Atomic Punks do not have one - nor does their guitar player Brian Young, who was David Lee Roths guitarist. I am not against the inclusion of cover bands and tribute bands but I think the guidelines should be modified somehow to reflect a set of guidelines that would be specific to that genre of music. And going back to The Iron Maidens again - I again ask if they are really so notable that their albums are automatically above the set guidelines for albums, as well as all of their current and former members (9 people)? At the least I am thinking the individual albums either be merged into the main article or deleted all together. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it would be necessary to specify that a tribute act could be important. The point there is #1: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." There's also a chance for #4: "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." If it meets either of those (and I'm not saying it does, but that it may), it doesn't matter if it's a tribute band or an original materials band or jazz ensemble with a rotating cast of players or a group of toddlers with kazoos. :) I suspect given my previous experiences at this page that an effort to branch out into specific genres will meet with some resistance, as people resist what they perceive as instruction creep. If you want to propose it, that would start with drafting some ideas and publicizing them here and at relevant points in Wikipedia. "Village pump" is usually a good place to mention such. (Smaller changes generally don't require that much work, but overhauls to an existing system do.) As to the notability of The Iron Maidens, the place to ask that (for deletion) is at WP:AfD. That's a consensus question; if some assertion of importance is made (enough to escape speedy) nobody here can answer that. :) Merge proposals are done at the articles themselves. In terms of other articles that are or are not around, Wikipedia necessarily depends on volunteers (of course), which means that the articles we have are the articles they feel like giving us. I'd guess that The Iron Maidens have a member or a fan who is a Wikipedian. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to non-English/American released albums currently WP does not seem to make any separate guidelines, not that I am saying there should be because I do feel the criteria should be the same. However how does one make a distinction about refs and citations? For example if any album was listed with simply a track listing and a brief blurb about "This is the first release" would that be considered notable? I don't think so and the first line under the albums criteria says: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. With that in mind I marked several albums for possible deletions because they may not meet the criteria listed here. They were: Sam (Osvajači album), Vrelina and The Best Of (Osvajači album). On every page the author removed the templates and said the same thing on each talk page - the band is "the top and most influential" band of the genre, The albums are listed in a rock Encyclopedia, the albums are official studio release (Not demos, etc) and that the label that released the albums is the "second largest record label in SFR Yugoslavia" (However The Best Of shows it was released on "Take It Or Leave It Records", not the same label on the other two). However I am under the impression that even if the album was released by the "second largest record label" in any country that would not automatically mean the album is notable. Likewise if a band was the top band in a county of a specific genre it does not automatically mean that their albums are notable. A listing in a rock Encyclopedia does not seem to be "significant coverage in reliable sources" either. The main band article (Osvajači) has remained relatively unchanged since it was created in November 2007, and in itself I am not sure if the main article meets WP guidelines in that there is a lack of any real information (citations, links to reviews, interviews) that is verifiable. I am making no judgment on the band, only asking do we use the same criteria for the "unknown" as we do for the "known". Plus if there were citations and external links there is a high probability they would not be in English and the guidelines do say links to English language content are strongly preferred for use in the English-language Wikipedia. Any advice on this one? Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under ordinary circumstances, if a PROD is a challenged, the next step is WP:AfD. I'm not familiar with the band, but I have to say that my experience is that in AfD, people are careful to avoid systemic bias by judging as non-notable something that may be prominent in another country. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. :) I got quite a few hits on Google by typing in "Sam + Osvajači", but I can't tell if some of the pages being returned are reliable sources or not. (English language sources are preferred, but, as WP:NONENG notes, in the absence of them any reliable source will do.)

Probably what I would do in your place is first talk to the contributor who removed the tag and ask his or her help in finding reliable sources in any language to help verify notability. If he or she isn't available or is unable to help, I might ask for assistance at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia to see if anyone from the region can shed light on this band. If no help was forthcoming, I would next consider whether it would be better to propose merging album articles that lack evidence of independent notability to the band article (would definitely propose before doing that, as it seems the PROD remover might object) or if the band should be evaluated for notability by the community at AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

might ask for assistance at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia... Oh, that is a great idea! I did think about, and probably will, post to the author of the articles however I wanted to check here first to see if I was overlooking something obvious as far as criteria goes for albums and their notability. Now what about a Serbian tribute band? ;) Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing an article on Wikipedia that was one of those upside down exclamation point "We keep this because its funny" pages (or at least I think it was?) regarding musical notability. Anyone got a link?Andrew Nutter (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we include Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) in the "You may have been looking for" list? That was, in fact, what I was seeking. Philhower (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an artist is on tour and hires a "fill in" (or even session) musician and, in articles about the band and/or their concert mentions the musician, would that meet criteria #4 - "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". Maybe the question would be "what is considered 'non-trivial'?". Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "non-trivial" if it's at least "significant". :)
I'm afraid that there is no absolute measurement that I can give you, but there's a bit more about it at WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.". If the articles, as you say, only mentions the band, e.g. it's not much more than a name drop and a brief description, then it's trivial. --Amalthea^Talk 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would likely require the person, as an individual, to have gain coverage of a national tour. The 'fill in' musician cannot inherit notability from simply being associated with a notable group. --neon white talk 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the wording "Has been the subject of a ... longer broadcast" meant to be interpreted? Is the musician supposed to be the topic, in the meaning it's supposed to be about him and not with him performing his work? The question has been raised at AfD:John Dahlbäck, where I thought that a 75 minute performance (Essential Mix) on Britain's biggest radio network would file under p12. Apparently it isn't obvious, so any thoughts would be appreciated! Thankfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am slowly working on sections of the Music Guidelines to bring them "up to date" with the internet. There has been an influx of articles that use website, magazine and newspaper "news", "upcoming releases", "reader picks" or other similar "user submitted" sections as citations. Blogs are getting cited a lot more, many newspapers and magazines now have staff "blogs" which would make a link/citation seem like it goes to a "reliable" source however it ends up being a personal blog by an editor of the publication. Currently it is only the artist, publicist or label who are fully addressed in Section 1. Based on several AfDs, and other discussions, many Editors feel that as long as it is technically not a "press release", "advertisement" or "booking information" than anything else's is "significant coverage" that proves Notability. In principal "independent from the musician/ensemble itself" seems clear but a recent AfD discussion brought to light that some editors feel a "self submitted" article that gets printed in a national magazine is "independent from the musician/ensemble itself" because the magazine chose to run the article. The same is argued for an endorsement deal because the company, not the artist, is doing the "advertising". With that in mind I am bringing Section 1 of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" guideline here for beginning discussion.

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theater group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

1. • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media and television documentaries except for the following:
     • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
     • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
     • User submitted news articles, either in print or online, that consist of an artist bio, release date or track listing for any form of recording or upcoming concert dates.
     • Endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist.
     • Discussions in "chat rooms", "bulletin boards" or "message boards", be it a fan site or an official site.
     • Information or commentary found in blogs.

This should be a good starting point for discussion. Once the dust has settled on this I will move on to "Albums, singles and songs". Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, brevity is important (you'll see a lot of people shying away from instruction creep), and I think we may be able to make many of the same points more succinctly simply by incorporating by reference WP:V: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable (excluding self-published sources)" Those three words shouldn't be necessary, since self-published sources are already not "reliable", but if it needs reinforcement they stand to explicitly eliminate blogs (unless official, for instance if maintained by Entertainment Weekly staff. Blogs by professional writers are acceptable: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."), chat rooms, bbs, message boards, etc. (I also changed the "reliable" wikilink from WP:RS to WP:Sources. WP:V is policy; WP:RS is a guideline. These days, WP:V seems to me to do a better job setting out what a "reliable source" is anyway, and it does contain a pointer to WP:RS for those who want more detail.)

If that three word (and wikilink) change addressed those concerns adequately, that would only leave "endorsement deal publicity" and "user submitted news articles" to address. I'm not really familiar with endorsement deal publicity, though it seems sensible to be specific to me, if people are inappropriately citing PR material because its hosted by an indirectly related company. Would that be like, oh, Johnny Amazingdrummer signing up with Shiny Popular Drum Company?

The one that concerns me is "user submitted news article." My concern is its application to sites like All About Jazz. The artist bios and record reviews at that site are "user submitted", but contributions are vetted before publication in a process that typically takes about 5 days. That makes it a "closed wiki"; it is a "reliable, third-party" site "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and I would personally not like to see any change to guideline that might result in its being dismissed from music articles. Do you have an example of the kinds of "user submitted news articles" that concern you? (Or is All About Jazz what you had in mind? :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well "user submitted" is meant to include all users including artists, publicists and the like. As currently worded it implies that if there is a press release on an artists official site, publicists site or a label site it could not be counted as "notable". However any member of the public can take that same press release and submit any place where "user submitted" article are allowed. Example of publications and websites that do this are: AP:News is getting cited a lot of late. LA Times The Guide, South Florida Sun Sentinel community news (See also Community Events ), Leader Herald Virtual Newsroom, Albany Times Union calender, BBC information on "User Generated Content", CNN's iReport (From the about page: iReport.com is a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post. Only the stories marked "On CNN" have been vetted by CNN for use in CNN's global news coverage.), Introduce Yourself section in Bass Player Magazine. Really there are lot more but this should give an idea of what I am talking about that meets the criteria I mention - an artist bio, release date or track listing for any form of recording or upcoming concert dates.

For endorsement deals - examples are Warwick basses list of users, Fender endorser page for The Derailers, Schecter Guitars endorser list with photos, Korg featured artist endorsement interview.

I hope that helps. What it boils down to is sending Editors to various WP policy pages about one specific item may not address the information contained in a subject specific set of guidelines such as this. Information from any location should not be counted as "Significant Coverage" as it relates to notability if all it contains is a mention of a musical recording ("I really liked the new gbdx demo"), track information (The new gbdx CD has 11 songs on it), an upcoming show ("If you are going to be in the neighborhood catch gbdx Friday night"), a past show ("Last Fridays show with gbdx kicked ass") or other such information ("The singer for gbdx owns a car"). The concept here is to be specific as to the source and form of the "press releases", "advertising", "performance dates", "contact and booking details" and "other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So with "user submitted", your concern is material that is simply based on PR releases? Hmmm. How about clarifying something along the lines of "User submitted news articles, either in print or online, that consist of an artist bio, release date or track listing for any form of recording or upcoming concert dates, based on press releases." Would that serve your purposes? If not, maybe we can come up with some other language to exclude vetted material, such as we find at AllAboutJazz. In itself inclusion at such a website does not verify notability, of course, but it may lend towards widespread coverage.

With the endorsement deals, it seems I did grok what you meant. :) Such material is not independent, so I agree that it should be excluded from notability concerns. I'm not quite sure where you're standing on the three-word addition I proposed; does that address your concern with self-published sources? Your notes about gbdx owning a car (which genuinely made me LOL) would most definitely be "trivial". :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→::::Reply to Moonriddengirl: Being information from a Press Release is not my only concern about "User Submitted", it can be "news" from any source - a band member, a manager, a concert promoter, a venue owner, a recording engineer, a roadie - it does not matter. Any editor can go to a website that has this "official" information and "User Submit" that same information. (here is a perfect example: THE NEW RISING SONS (EX-TEXAS IS THE REASON, SOLEA) REUNITE) As currently worded as long as that information is "independent" from the subject it should be fine. Now, if you put some of this information that is only one sentence long ("The singer for gbdx owns a cat too") down as a citation to prove "Notability" it logically would seem to fail any guidelines of notability for creating a separate article on the subject. But it does not seem too matter because an editor can use several of these and say "These citations and sources prove the artist is notable because it meets number 1 of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles." As for "self Published Sources the way that is worded currently it does not apply to items such as "user submitted" in the way I am talking about. For example I mentioned the "Introduce Yourself" section of Bass Player Magazine. This would not fit into the musician "self-publishing" the article but it might fall under: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Because the "author" is a bass player and because it is published in a magazine by an "established expert on the topic of the article" (Bass players) it could be argued that this "user submitted" article is acceptable. But yet it, in theory, is not acceptable by the WP:MUSIC guideline which clearly disallows articles in "other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". It is a contradiction of sorts when it comes to this. (See my reply to Neon White below for more information that relates to your comments) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to decide if the phrase "news articles" is sufficient to distance what you're talking about from what I'm talking about. "News articles" could be taken specifically to refer to breaking news--announcements of releases and whatnot along the usual line of PR. But that raises the question of how the "Introduce Yourself" section of Bass Player Magazine would be interpreted as a "news article". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support these changes. (I'm so glad for preview; I was about to submit an opposite opinion until I re-read and noticed the except in the first line!) There is a constant barrage of new articles in which well-meaning authors presume that any mention of an artist's name establishes notability; having this specifically codified will help maintain and even raise the stature of the encyclopedia. A re-wording that reinforces the fact that the list is an exception list might be helpful.  Frank  |  talk  12:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I'm conerned this is 'over guidelining' and instruction creep. It's essentially an explaination what is and is not a reliable source. Isn't the idea of reliable sources already adequately covered in WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V? Why not wikilink to those? This is about notability primarily rather than a guideline on reliable music sources. --neon white talk 16:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→::Reply to Neon White: Just to break it down a bit. Here is what the current subject specific guidelines in section 1 do not allow: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. There are also 12 listed items, most of them are very specific. Now if none of those are considered "instruction creep" the items I am suggesting are not anything that different, if anything they just clarify. Neon white asked: "Isn't the idea of reliable sources already adequately covered in WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V?" Currently none for the guidlines make any mention of any "endorsement deal" as it relates to musicians. Likewise there are currently no mentions of any form of "user submitted news". The specifics about all of this comes from how Editors are reading "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" in the most logical place to read it when putting together an article about an artist - WP:MUSIC. One of the most common comments is "They are a notable, they have an album" and to verify this there are "multiple" links to "independent" comments placed in "reliable" sources. The rational appears to be the Editor asks their self if the cited source is a "press release", a listing of "performance dates", "contact and booking details", an advertisement "for the musician/ensemble" or an article "where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". If it is none of those than it is used to prove "notability" of the subject. Here are a few examples:

• Houston Calls Release Date cited as one of several "non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". (Should be noted that the "several" sources are 4 citations, three of them to this same websites "user submitted" news section).
• Gretsch G6136DL David Lee Limited Edition Electric Guitar is the only citation given in one article to prove notability of the articles subject. (Presumed rationale: Not an advertisement for the musician, not "self published", not a press release - only shows that the artist is in a band and has an endorsement deal so it meets the current guidlines).
• "Many of the B-Sides/Demos can be found on file sharing networks such as LimeWire" used to establish notability.
• eventful.com cited because it includes a bio which includes a brief interview and user comments (see the "Share your thoughts…" section) that are all "independent from the musician/ensemble itself" as this is not an "official" site, nor "self-published".
• Bass Player Magazine, October 2008. Introduce Yourself section cited because "The magazine has to pick who they want to feature, right? A feature is a feature. You are arguing semantics at this point. It IS significant third party coverage.".
  (See my reply to Moonriddengirl above for more information that relates to your comments) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you quoting in that last example? From where? We need a link to satisfy WP:NFCC. :) (Actually, smiley aside and strange as it sounds, we really do; contributors of content on Wikipedia retain right to attribution. Even more importantly, it would be helpful to see context.) We don't need to change the guideline for such as fullersguitar.com—we just need to point out that it's not a reliable source by policy (which trumps our guideline anyway). It's "promotional in nature", which makes it off the bat a questionable source. Not that I object to explicitly excluding endorsements, if necessary. My concern is with clarifying user submitted, and, as I've indicated above, I think most of the others can be handled much more succinctly by changing a few words. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)#[reply]

You can read the details at the closed AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary The Label Guy. Self written articles aside the "endorsement deal" issue came up as well in this closed Afd because the editor was using that as a form of notability as well, but that is not the only place where "endorsement deal" has come up. I just stumbled across an AfD today (sorry, I do not have it in front of me so I can not send you to it) that was brought up for NN and an editor brought up in the discussion about the articles subject having an endorsement deal because the article mentioned it, another editor said it was notable. I can give all kinds of AfD example where Editors are basing "notability" on all of the things I have mentioned however I do not feel this is really the place to list them because it might be thought of as canvasing. And to try and over explain myself some more on the "user submitted news" issue - if you take a closer look at what I am saying (in the red) I am not trying to limit their use for verifying things such as a release date, track listing or upcoming concert date, I am only trying to say that items such as this are not allowed to establish "Notability". Most places call these "news submissions" and I am trying to use a general term, "user submitted", that would include all, but not limited to, the following "user submitted news" items that may contain an artist bio, release date or track listing for any form of recording or upcoming concert dates or any combination thereof : "Community events", "Upcoming shows", "Event Calender", "Bars and clubs", "Announcements", "Live listings", "User Picks", "Reader picks" and other like items. We could just go with "user submitted" and leave it, but I think that is too broad. Because of the fact most published (online or in print) call it "news" than it would be easier for editors to "get it". Here are some "submission" pages: Alternative Press: Got something you want to tell us about? Submit your news about your favorite artists here; La Times: Be a trend setter and create a list!; Village Voice: Have an event you want listed? Just fill out the form below to send it to us!; LA Weekly: Submit an Event; Eventful.com : Click the Add Stuff + button (Must be a registered user); Absolute Punk : Post New Article (Recommended to "create an account" if you want credit for your article); Star Pulse: Want to be featured on Starpulse.com? - Celebrities or publicist who would like to contribute to Starpulse.com please use the contact page, and select "Editorial Department" in the drop down box.; Melodic.net To make melodic.net even better we have now a new feature where you readers can submit news to us.; BBC Your News is the first-such show on British television to be made entirely from material sent in by you. and of course you already see the Bass Player magazine one. I mean, those, again, are just examples on how to submit "news", "user-generated content" as the BBC calls it. I am not sure I can make any of this any more clear, so now I think it is just wording.

PS - on the "fullers guitar" link - you say it would fall under WP:QS but I actually do not fully agree with that. If the concept is that all advertisements are defined by Wikipedia guidlines as "Questionable sources" because they have a "poor reputation for fact-checking" than I need to suggest a slight re-wording about that. I would for say that "advertisements do not equal notability". I would even go go as far as to say that most advertisements are non neutral because they are trying to sell (thusly promoting) something. But, when all is said an done, if no advertising of any kind should be allowed I would then suggest changing "advertising for the musician/ensemble" to "any form of advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, this includes equipment manufacturers endorsement material." Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern isn't with clarifying here what's meant by "user submitted news articles" but in your proposed change. :) I agree that just calling it "user submitted" is too broad. Maybe the thing to do is to go with a few footnoted examples for clarification. With respects to the "fullers guitar" link, it has a "add to cart" link at the bottom, which seems about as promotional as it gets. I agree with the change to "any form of advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, this includes equipment manufacturers' endorsement material." Of course, endorsement deals that are covered by legitimate press are different; if it's notable enough that Musician A is shilling Product B that Business Week runs a piece on it, it's notable. I rather suspect that if the product or the musician are notable, somebody reliable will point it out, and we won't have to deal with the promotional text from Product B shouting that Musician A, its new bestest friend, is the bestest thing evah. But no amount of guideline clarification is going to prevent things like the Cary the Label Guy AfD, because some people choose to ignore guideline. In that case, of course, we have a COI sock. Such people will grasp at anything they can find (or, sometimes, not bother grasping at anything, but just doggedly continue to pursue their goals unapologetically.) That's not a good faith contributor legitimately misunderstanding guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment This guideline is an extension of WP:N and essentially what is being proposed here is already outlined at Wikipedia:N#General notability guideline. Reliable sources need to meet those criteria. Things like press releases and endorsement deal come under the rules about independence, neither would be independent of the artist (though considering it, i cannot see a reason why an endorsement deal shouldn't add to notability). User submitted news would be considered a WP:SPS and therefore not reliable. They've never been acceptable on wikipedia. Also note small lines of 'news' like the absolutepunk example would not be considered 'significant coverage' which states that it must address the subject in detail. Remember guidelines are not intended to legislate for every single eventuality and every single ludicrous claim of notability that pops up in an afd, there is going to be borderline notability, exceptional cases and sources that require editors' judgement, we have deletion discussions for that purpose. If people consider it necessary, an idea might be to repeat the WP:N criteria here rather than offer instructions as predefined do's and dont's. On the matter of 'user submitted content', all newspapers and news stations have a newsdesk for submitting stories, in the end everything is submitted by someone, what matters is that it is published by a source with editorial oversight that we know for sure will have fact checked the story before printing. The principle of this is verifiability and is very well covered there. It's a well known concept that the key policies of notability and verifiability are very much linked but i don't believe we need to unecessary repetition. The problem here is not with these guidelines but with a lack of understanding about core policies and the inaccurate closing of some afds. --neon white talk 12:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You note " i cannot see a reason why an endorsement deal shouldn't add to notability"--it does, but not if it's only reported by the partner, as in that case it is not independent. :) That said, I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't object to clarifying the endorsement deal question (perhaps adding a few words to "Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble."--maybe something along the lines of "including advertisements for products endorsed by the musician/ensemble"?) Otherwise, I'm still inclined to think that most of this could be handled by minimally altering "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. → "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable (excluding self-published sources)". (Admittedly it's hammering home what's already in those linked policies & guidelines, but it only represents three words.) You make a good point about user submitted news. If we do cover it here, perhaps it would be an appropriate footnote to the bit I last quoted, maybe along the lines of "User submitted news, unless subjected to editorial oversight, constitutes a self-published source."? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theater group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

1. • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media and television documentaries except for the following:
     • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, all advertising that mentions the musician/ensemble, including equipment manufacturers advertising.¹ (With footnote: 1. Endorsement deal publicity (including sell sheets, promo posters, fliers, print advertising and links to an official company website) that lists the artist as an endorser or contains an "endorsement interview" with the artist)
     • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates,release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
     • An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The key issues as to why I think these changes are needed are coming out in the responses. I give examples that I know would not be considered good sources for "notability" and the comment back is "Things like that are not allowed per..." and another guideline beyond this one is cited. This set of guidlines was created as there was a need for explaining items that are not explicit in, for example, Wikipedia:Notability. These guidlines for musicians are meant to be more explicit than the general guidlines. A book author would not have to be on a "major label" or have "had a record certified gold or higher" to be considered notable. A car manufacturer would not have to won an award "such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award" to be considered notable. A set of numbers would not have to "been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to be considered notable. These are items that are clear and apply to Music. This subject specific set of guidlines exist for a reason - to assist someone who is creating an article on a music related topic. If an editor working on an article looked over any SNG to see if "user submitted news" articles were allowed I do not think that they would automatically end up at WP:SPS unless someone directed them to look there. Aside from being directed there, if an editor is working on an article music related they would most likely look here, and while this set of guidlines is specific with terms such as "press releases" and "performance dates" it is not specific about "release dates" "track listings" or other articles that might be "user submitted". If a one line "news article" about a musical release was in question I would look here - and it does not explicitly say that type of article can not be used. So my question, again, is if we can say "press release" why can't we also say "Endorsement deal publicity/interviews" "release dates" or "track listings"? There is a current foot note that says, in part, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it". However this still does not cover a one - three paragraph (or sentence) "user submitted" article. I could submit "The new Neon White album, "moonriddengirl", is set to be released November 1" to ten online sites that "publish" it. There are various discussions going on going on where exactly that kind of source is being used to show notability. There are articles that have nothing more than myspace links and "user submitted" stories being denied CSD's and having PRODS removed because the articles subject "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". (Actually aside from the "They are notable they have an album!" argument the "They have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" is an argument I see used more and more when these types of things are questioned) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes you've implemented above. With respect to "further discussion", while it's true that many of the response are "look at policy X", it's important to remember that guidelines and policies on Wikipedia work together. We don't need to duplicate everything here that is already written elsewhere, especially in policy, which trumps guidelines. You say, "If an editor working on an article looked over any SNG to see if "user submitted news" articles were allowed I do not think that they would automatically end up at WP:SPS unless someone directed them to look there"—this is why I have several times suggested directing them to look there. (Alterations to this guideline should not impact CSDs. Articles on musical topics are speedily deletable if they do not indicate that their subject is important or significant--that is, something beyond your typical garage band--not if they do not verify that their subject is notable. And, of course, anyone can contest a PROD for any reason...even after the article has been deleted, at which point it is automatically restored.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the WP:SPS link I thought you were only asking if I thought that covered "user submitted" in the large sense, which I don't. In the small sense it does - such as the "Introduce yourself" column because it is the actual player who is doing the writing. But the "Endorsement Deal" issues, no. It would be different if, say, Fender came in and wrote an article about their 2009 line and who is using/endorsing it. Than it would fit. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I think "release information or track listings" to the second line is good but why do we need to specifically mention equipment endorsements? Isn't this clearly advertising? Plus it's almost inevitable that a musician to say, appear on the front page of fender.com, would have other notability. --neon white talk 12:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: It is needed to specifically mention endorsement deals unless WP:SPAM is reworded. Currently that guideline says "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." The wording is important as it says "Articles considered advertisements..." not "An article that contains links to advertisements as sources..." But even if it did, in the case of an endorsement deal, it is not always "advertising" in the sense most editors would define "advertising". I gave examples above of various forms of "endorsement deal" information and in the case of "musicians and ensembles" an "independent" and "third party" website that has a list of artists who "use this product" may not be looked upon as either "Self-published" or "advertising for the musician/ensemble". The same would go for an "endorsement interview" with the "musicians and ensembles" as the interview is not "Self-published" or "advertising for the musician/ensemble". I guess a sub set of this would information about trade shows such as NAMM, which are huge "endorsement deal" "advertisements" in the making. Slipping off into my own "OS", if you will, for a bit there are various levels of endorsement deals. To an outsider it may seem "Notable" to get one however artists can attend NAMM and start handing out press kits to all the company reps who are there. (Or company reps can talk up the better known musicians who attend in hops they will endorse them - it is a two way street) You do not need to be signed, you do not need to have anything released, you do not need to be on a major label, you do not need to be "famous" - all you need to a press kit. It does not mean a company will endorse you but chances are you can walk away with something. It might be guitar strings, it might be mic cable, it might be sneakers, it might be pick ups, guitar picks, drum sticks, drum heads, straps or any number of other items including an instrument. But even that is subject to discussion if that is "notable" because some artists have a "full endorsement" and others have a partial one. In brief it means the artist gets free gear or the artist pays a reduced price for the gear. A trade show is not the only place to secure an endorsement deal, most companies allow artists to mail in a press kit or even email a link to their myspace page. Yes - artists who have nothing more than a myspace page can, and have, gotten them. All of this combined is why it should explicitly mention "endorsement deal" in the subject. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point here, this isnt about advertising being added to article, it's why we need to specifically outline appearances in product endorsements as inappropriate material to assert notability? There's really no business sense in asking a nobody to endorse your product, it's pointless, the whole point of endorsment is to buy the influence of a well respected figure and to be such, would almost certainly entail having a valid claim of notability. Getting free samples is a very different thing to Dave Gilmour on the front of fender.com or Gary numan on the yamaha site. --neon white talk 19:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if a person asked to endorse a deal is notable, then the endorsement is likely to be covered by reliable sources, not merely advertisements. And even if it isn't, the Dave Gilmours and the Gary Numans of the world don't need to rely on product endorsement partners to broadcast that they meet notability guidelines. The specific types of sources being described here are not independent, since it is in the best interest of Endorsee to make Endorser seem as important as possible. They're already essentially excluded from notability considerations as promotional material; from what I see Soundvisions1 is arguing that there's a need to make it explicit. -Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. It would seem to be such an unlikely occurance that a subject would have an endorsement deal as the sole claim of notability that it seems odd to explicitly outline it. --neon white talk 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it has happened, and continues to happen. I supplied examples above of at least two articles that were brought to AfD based on an "endorsement deal" being given for notability. In one article it was the only citation and in the other it was an endorsement deal along with a self submitted article that were the main claims of "Notability". And there are many more to be found. Articles exist on Wikipedia solely based on citations that are one or two line "user submitted" "news" pieces that contain release date of an album. Articles exist with citations to press releases placed on blogs and forums. Articles exist that contain all of the currently "except" items along with ones that I am proposing to include being used as citations. I keep trying to take out the shop talk to explain the "endorsement deal" issue and somehow it is still not being made clear. Maybe this: if an editor created an article that said "David Gilmore is the guitarist in Pink Floyd" that would be a pretty big indicator of notability. And you could, fairly easy, find many many sources that fit he policies and guidlines. Now if an editor created an article that said "Gil David is the guitarist in Moose Pie Hodown" there would be all sorts of issues brought up and it would be that much harder to establish notability. "The subject has a myspace page" would not work. "The subjects band has a myspace page" would not work. "The band Gil is in released CD's that were paid for by the drummer before Gil was in the band" would not work. "Gil has been in band that played local shows headline by a popular band" would seem impressive but notability buy association is still not accepted. "The band Gil is in has received local press" is a start but if it is just local press does not fully meet the guidlines, and if it is not soley on the subject of the article it does not establish that the individual is notable. "Gil not only play a Rubber Stamp guitar, he is endorsed by them" hmmm...is this notable? The quote from Neon White is "There's really no business sense in asking a nobody to endorse your product, it's pointless, the whole point of endorsment is to buy the influence of a well respected figure and to be such, would almost certainly entail having a valid claim of notability." So by those terms Gil is now notable. But what about the rest of the guidlines? The subject does not meet any of them. It makes no sense to exclude marketing put out by the band, their publicist or their label but not exclude marketing put out by a company trying to sell a product that a member of a band uses, soley because the company is a "third party". We would not allow an article to cite a "list of drummers who live in Florida" to be used, so why should we allow a "List of drummers who use our product" to be used? We would not allow a self interview about how great their own band is to be used so why should we allow an interview where the subject talks about how great a product they are endorsing to be used? Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Where is this standing right now? Are we prepared to implement the last set of changes? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I am ok with it. Neon white and I have a different opinion of what an "endorsement deal" is and/or means. User:Frank voiced "support" for the more detailed version, the "endorsement deal" portion has only been moved to a footnote. I would say you call it Moonriddengirl. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Still Oppose as unecessary instruction creep. There hasn't been an argument put forward yet that sufficiently justifies the inclusion of, what seems to be, quite random particulars and why it is not adequately covered under current notability policy. --neon white talk 18:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 4 of the notability guidelines currently reads: "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." I see this criterion has been the subject of some discussion in the past, but the question I have doesn't seem to be addressed by those discussions. This is in relation to a comment on an AfD, specifically Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Capella_of_Calvin_College (please note I am the nominator in this discussion).

As it is presently worded, Criterion 4 is unique (with the trivial exception of criterion 1) in that, rather than asking for the musical act to have done something specific (toured, won an award, released multiple albums) to meet the criterion, it asks for reliable sources to have covered a specific act (touring). By its present reading, the sources are what makes the criterion met, not the fact of the tour. Obviously, WP:V applies to everything, but as an example, criterion 11 could be met by a trivial mention on a radio station website of their rotation list, and WP:MUSIC would be satisfied. Criterion 4 cannot be similarly verified from trivial or first party sources; it must have nontrivial reliable coverage.

My question, therefore, is; is my analysis of the criterion as it stands correct, and if so, is this deliberate, and does this represent present consensus? If present consensus is that the tour is the key element, how could the criterion be reworded to reflect this? gnfnrf (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure if this will answer your question but there is the footnote attached the specific guideline you mention: This criterion has been disputed in the past and has been reworded numerous times as a result. Past significant discussions: 1, 2 (permalink). EDIT - sorry, I see you did say your question does not "seem to be addressed by those discussions". WP:GNG defines terms and a mention of a concert on a radio station would not fall under "Significant coverage". The issue is how to verify a tour took place, not a few shows. The ability to verify something such as a release date, track listings, band members or live shows can be done by "official" means, but the "Significant Coverage" (as defined in WP:GNG) can not. I agree it is somewhat vague and some otherwise non-notable artists have slipped through because they have done a handful of shows outside of the United States. Common sense and Logic should allow the WP:NOTE guidlines to be brought into play. The wording of "...is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" suggests otherwise. For example even though Pink Floyd did very few concerts overall in support of The Wall it could be verified as a "notable" tour because of the scope of the actual "show" and the fact the tour received "non-trivial coverage". The other end of the spectrum is that if a "local band" played the same amount of shows it might not be considered as notable, with the exception of "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". So while a "local" band may not be notable for doing three shows in their home state that same band might receive "Significant coverage" in a country outside of the United States for doing three shows. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • The first discussion is about what range of tours should be considered. "national" vs "significant". The second is about adding the words "non-trivial" to make the criterion harder to pass. Neither seem particularly relevant. gnfnrf (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the criterion (based on my probably flawed recall of past discussions) is that the publicity is what makes notability. Hypothetical example: rich college kid cover band A uses its own money to hop from its home base in Boston to play a string of bars in Mexico. The fact that they took their bar band to another country does not inherently make them notable. It becomes notable if respectable media decide it is...at which point it meets criterion 1, anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this criterion just now, I wondered (forgive me if I'm misinterpreting things here): how big of countries do we need? Let's say that there's a French band from Nice that goes down the road to have a concert in Monaco — it's small enough that a single concert would easily draw interested people from all over the country — and gets some coverage from Monaco's media. Would that band automatically be notable, despite Monaco's ridiculously small size? Or would it be better to say that they have to go touring a certain distance, so that individual little performances in tiny countries wouldn't count? Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

i think some extra clarification is needed here on what an 'important indie label'. What is a 'roster of performers', how many are notable and how notable? There are many labels that have been around just a few years have a handful of bands that fit the notability criteria that i certainly wouldn't consider them one of the more important indie labels. --Neon white (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeking clarification: if they represent a roster of notable bands, why wouldn't you consider them one of the more important indie labels? What are your personal criteria? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(bump from archive 6) This definition seems cyclical. An indie label is "important" if it has many notable bands signed on it, and a band is notable if it's signed on an "important" indie label... if any of the other notability criterions come in at some point, no problem, but what about when they don't? How do we then decide if an underground indie artist may be notable enuff?

For sake of example, consider Webbed Hand Records. They've been around for more than a few years, and have a roster of musicians, all of which have released several albums. But do we consider them notable? Heck if I knew. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do their musicians meet any of the other criteria of notability? If they've got enough performers that do to meet the "many" criteria, then they should count. If they have one notable act or two, they might not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it needs clarifying in regards to only what is "important", although that word has been a cause for discussion. Mo-Da-Mu is a small label that no longer exists and, based on the criteria a currently written, an artist who appeared on that label does not meet "independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". In this case one band, 54•40, is notable however that is not "many" notable bands. There is an older discussion (Talk:Mo-Da-Mu) as to why an article on the label should be kept, and that is because of the reverse of this criteria - the label is "important", and notable, because of a single band. Although WP:CORP is not what we are talking about here this is relevant as the issues do go hand in hand. (Disclosure - yes, I did a PROD based on failure to meet WP:CORP and it was removed because an independent record label that's released material by 54-40 is notable although I was not involved in the discussion). It should be noted that the two links/citations given are for the band 54•40 and an "article" about the band where information in the article is credited as being supplied by Divine Industries, the bands management company and former owners of the label. So to bring this back to the criteria in question Mo-Da-Mu would not meet the criteria as an independent label with a "roster of performers, many of which are notable" but True North Records, another independent label that 54•40 was on, would. But perhaps the overall issue with this criteria is if the criteria of "independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" is a good description of all labels. It was harder to DIY when you a person had to press product in hops of getting it into brick and mortar shops. Now, because of home recording and the internet, it is a lot easier to really DIY and have product self made at home and sell. But does that make the "Label" important or notable? On the List of record labels there is a one line wording of "This is a list of notable record labels" but no detail about why a label on this list is "notable". As with other lists it might be based on the concept that if an article exists on Wikipedia than the subject of that article is notable. I randomly clicked and found labels such as Sacred Records, Screwgun Records and Seriously Groovy. They do not seem to meet the criteria we are discussing so when "musicians and ensembles" are being considered for their own article these label would not be allowed as one of the "automatically notable" criteria. But (I am not challenging notability of any of these, just showing/asking/relating to this discussion) the description of Screwgun Records says it was started by Tim Berne and that "Most releases have been by Berne". In looking at Tim Berne's article it shows he has released 25 albums between 1979 and 2007. No label is given but I would, at face value, think "Wow - this is impressive and notable". If, and I am saying "if" because I have not done OR on this matter beyond what exists on Wikipedia, these have all been Screwgun Records releases I would think the label is notable because it has put out so many releases. However seeing that it is the musicians own label I would not be so sure anymore. Would changing "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" to read "Has released two or more albums on a major label or indie label" work better? Or would more keeping it as it and more clearly defining "important indie label" work better? Should DIY labels created only for release of "self" and "Self" related product be excluded? Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that no one here actually works in the independent music industry, for an artist or act to be notable as per WP policy, 99.9% of the time they would also have to be signed to a major commercial label, thus criteria number 5 is a contradiction when applied to almost every case. Also, this policy goes hand in hand with notability and the two must be discussed in conjuction because people slapping tags on things directing others backwards and forwards between the two policies in useless. Nick carson (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia has many artists who are on indy labels and have been for most of their musical lives. Notability comes in many flavors and I am fairly certain that there is no policy on Wikipedia that states "99.9%" of musicians "have to be signed to a major commercial label" in order to be notable. Policy, such as Sources, dictates guideline. The general notability guidlines define the terms that an editor can find throughout all of the subject specific guidelines, of which Notability (music) is one of. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i dislike the criteria on the principle that notability should not be inherited from label to band. Nick carson is correct that sometimes WP:MUSIC contradicts WP:N in that the basic criteria for notability should be reliable sources. If there's none of those then how is the article not original research or a permanent stub? They could easily be deleted on that basis ignoring these guidelines. --neon white talk 12:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the CSD queue I see that someone has nominated a lot of articles on record labels some of which longstanding, for speedy deletion as per CSD A7. Now, WP:MUSIC isn't explicit but indirectly refers to major independent labels as those "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". As this comes form the section on bands, it may be somewhat circular, but I'd say that an article about a label that is around some time with several linked bands asserts enough importance to warrant discussion. I've declined one speedy, but would appreciate further input.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, strongly. A7's intent is to allow for uncontroversial deletions, which these clearly would not be. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you--there's sufficient assertion of importance there to warrant more investigation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I'll go through them and remove all but any obvious (some have already been deleted but I will double check the as well).--Tikiwont (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing this all of of the precedent from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Scare Industries which had a roster of mostly notable bands, but was deemed an unnotable label.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not CSD, though. CSD is for straightforward cases. A7 is a lesser threshold of importance than WP:ORG. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you coming from, but that was the outcome of a discussion. Even if most labels that you tagged seem to be less notable than Red Scare Industries, they are not necessarily clear speedy deletion candidates. At least not for someone not much into punk. If you look at above thread we may have a problem here as many bands derive their notability claim also from being singed to an important indie label, but it isn't so clear what that means. So best discuss and if we have more AfDs maybe we can expand this guideline. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I declined some of those on similar grounds as well. Like any band with at least one notable member fails A7 deletion for possible inherited notability, so too any label which signed an notable artist may be notable itself. Mostly they aren't, but as Moonriddengirl says, that's not a job for CSD to decide. Regards SoWhy 22:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is an album by a notable artist, which is limited to a 500-copy release, notable? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, depends on the album itself as usual. A bunch of EPs are limited to low numbers and still are notable, but as with every album it's not just notable because the artist is or because it is limited. Regards SoWhy 20:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup question: There isn't even an article on Hora, should there be articles on his albums, even if he is notable as being a former member of a notable band? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend proposing deletion if no reliable sources can be found. --neon white talk 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Hora (musician). Needs work, but it exists.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under what circumstances is a future single notable enough for its own article, given that it will not yet have "been ranked on national or significant music charts" or "won significant awards or honors" or "have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups"?

I'm struggling to see how these guidelines ever allow the {{future single}} banner to be legitimately used on an article. 86.133.214.137 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can easily assume they will. --neon white talk 14:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across any other part of Wikipedia where an assumption is sufficient. If it's really the case that an unreleased song is notable if it is expected to chart (expected by who?) then I think this needs to be explicitly stated in the guidelines. 86.152.243.219 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia, where we don't act, we react. My take is that the template probably served a useful purpose when it was created in 2005, back before we even had a notability guideline. Looking back at the history, it appears that the template survived an attempt at deleting it in May, and in the discussion some of these exact points were raised. I interpret this template as having a very narrow proper use, in the case of an unreleased but anticipated single from a highly notable performer, sort of the musical analog to the pre-release hype surround the Harry Potter books, or certain films. Such a single would almost certainly meet the general notability guideline rather than the sub-guidelines quoted by Anon. I'd love to give a concrete example, but I simply can't think of one. Candidly, if I were a gambler, I'd wager that the template will be deleted before the occasion comes to use it properly. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Whilst we can't specualute that a single might chart in the article it's fair to use specualtion in deciding to keep on article especially if it is well sourced. In summary, if a single has been announced via press releases etc, we have evidence of a scheduled event. Remember that the criteria here are an extention of the ones WP:N, reliable sources are always preferable as the key to notability. --neon white talk 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases can't confirm notability, though. As the guideline says, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If you have that, anything else is gravy. But I can think of plenty of cases where we'd get that with a future single. I joined in watching Womanizer (song) prior to its release to help protect it against OR, and it had tons of coverage. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose the addition of the key or keys of a piece when it warrants its own article. I am not sure of the exact area to place this request but this seemed the most relevant. It would be nice if it was located in the document under the main summary table on the right side of the page. From a musician standpoint it is nice to know the key for transposing, figuring out progressions, etc. I have been unable to find a source like this on the net and think it would be wonderful to add this information to the encyclopedia.128.138.108.96 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly, unless the key that a musical piece is in would help to establish notability, this is not the place for a full discussion. Having said that you may want to rephrase the quesiton and bring it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as what sources might be used to cite what key a song is in. You can add information to any article you want as long as you can cite a source for it. An editor can say that old school Van Halen songs were played half a step down but unless valid citations were given it would be removed. Eddie's tuning is somewhat discussed, although not very well cited. As I say, come up with some examples of sources you would use and ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recommendation on where to propose the article. I am slightly confused about the citation aspect, however, as the song is the primary source. The song is in a key and that is the source of the information regarding the key. Any other source would be an article naming the key but it is difficult for me to academically understand the necessity when music theory is very clear about what notes fall into a certain key. I could understand how the key could be mistaken by someone who is not familiar with music theory but this could happen with anything. Now the tuning is a different aspect and I could see how a source needs to be given as it is stating "how" they tune their instrument to play the song. But as published in a recording format the key is established. I will definitely try the reliable sources area. Thank you again!128.138.108.96 (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is that is you listen to a recording and say "It is in the key of..." it is considered Original research, thusly not usable. As most recordings do not place information such as the key, or the tunings used, anywhere on the recording that information would need to come from another, published, source. That is why it is a good idea to ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard what sources would be considered reliable for citing information such as this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in to add here that you might mention the idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, but that WikiProject is very quiet. I'd go to the parent project, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, instead. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTOR. In a real sense, musical notation is akin to written language. It has grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, it's own alphabet and literature. I'd submit that it should come under the same "foreign language" exemption that WP:NOTOR discusses to the WP:NOR rule. Any competent musicians should be able to agree on the key(s) heard in a published recording, although exceptionally exotic tunings may complicate matters.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key signatures can easily be translated so a book of music notation might plausably be considered a reliable source for important classical and traditional songs. The problem with keys is that they are very much something that can be changed, it's going to be nearly impossible to cite the particular key a recording is in unless a reliable sources mentions it, something i have never come across in pop music literature, however classical music may be a different case. --neon white talk 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are having a discussion of two charts over in WP:Record charts at Top40-charts.com] and Chartblue.com. These are candidates to be added to the WP:BADCHARTS list, so it's best to get a reasonably wide consensus.—Kww(talk) 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]