An observation that may or may not generate discussion... I often investigate and comment on AfD's at Bands and musicians and have noticed a growing trend that may have been noticed before. In this day and age, new bands are likely to start their promotional efforts by building their own pages on social networking sites (MySpace, Facebook, etc.) and getting their MP3 files on music sites (LastFM, etc.). There seems to be a craze for doing the same thing on Wikipedia as if it is yet another social networking and self-promotion site, and they even use the previously self-built pages as references here. This usually kicks off discussions of notability under WP:BAND which tend to result in a consensus to delete. I propose that something be added to criterion #1 of WP:BAND along the lines of "pages the band has built itself on social networking and file sharing sites cannot be used as references in Wikipedia, are not reliable third-party sources, and do not confer notability." Support for this idea can also be found (indirectly) at criterion #4 of WP:PROMOTION. Comments? Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be covered in number 1: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable", with footnote clarifying:

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Self published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) 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. The rationale for this is easy to see– someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.

The other points do not mention that material must be verified by other than WP:SPS, but it says generally that "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true." SPS are excluded for that by WP:V. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I have seen that big footnote many times but somehow forgot about it while crafting my comment above. Thanks Moonriddengirl, I think that covers it, at least for experienced WP users. But maybe there is a need to be more specific with the term "self promotion" in the footnote and add distinct language about the social networking and music networking sites? They are the wave of the future (present) after all. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you envision? Do you think it would be helpful to write, say, "their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc."? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good... I would recommend precisely what Moonriddengirl said (but expand "website" to "personal website" and "book publisher" to "self-published media" or some such). I don't think I'm established enough to make actual changes to the WP guidelines, so I'll leave it as a recommendation to Moonriddengirl and others who happen to come across this discussion. Thanks, DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the implication of differentiation between 'encyclopedia' and 'directory' shouldn't be used in this criteria. Also, it fails to deal with the fact that many bands who are signed to major labels have indirect relationships with individuals and groups within the media via who they can promote themselves. Nick carson (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick carson. Why is self-promotion of unsigned bands and ultra-small labels on torrents, MySpace, twitter, college radio play etc. not applicable to notability if there is a verifiable audience? (e.g. with torrent trackers, number of blog reviews, etc.). Shouldn’t verifiable quantity count as well as the quality suggested by mainstream press coverage? Shouldn’t a million torrent downloads or a few dozen independent blog entries hold as much weight as a review in Pitchfork, to determine the notability of a band? Quantity is actually more verifiable than the quality of a mainstream review. Or is Wikipedia just an extension and encapsulation of mainstream media? Ironically, the conflict of interest is right there in the form of “notability”: Wikipedia is a sort of “mainstream press conglomerate” promoting mainstream press legitimacy—it IS the mainstream press promoting itself. Regardless, Wikipedia remains my go to source for mucho info.Jdcasten (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are GMA Dove Awards considered "major" awards under the notability criteria? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, definitely. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, yes. J04n(talk page) 12:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, they are the major awards within the sphere of American religious music. I've actually suggested they be added to the examples before, but consensus was that it wasn't useful to make this page into a laundry list of such awards. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the Christian music project the assessment of an artist's "Importance" is partially based on the types of awards that that have received. For Doves in particular, the type and number help determine the status of the artist. That's certainly not the only measure, but yes, we do consider them important. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is way OT, but was I the only one to think of Genetically Modified Arachnids?LeadSongDog come howl 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I think more importantly, far too much emphasis is placed on awards. Nick carson (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this RS? --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the personal website of a Certified Public Accountant in California, based on this and this. So I'd say that's a resounding no. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'ello. Question for anyone who cares to indulge. Regarding point 1 of the notability guidelines for musicians and ensembles (non-trivial published works, etc.). There is an exclusionary point listed, which reads:

• Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.

Interested to get a clarification/interpretation of this. Specifically, the "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" reference. I am participating in an AfD where I've recently altered my opinion on the AfD because of the introduction of a four page interview with a band in a notable source. However, there is a dissenting view on this source that references this particular reference.

My take on this is that it doesn't cover interviews, in general, but specifically covers content that the band or musician started of their own accord. I take as possible support of this interpretation the note appended to this reference, which speaks of "endorsement interviews." I think you can only interpret this as broadly excluding interviews for notability sourcing if you take the phrase "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" out of context.

Basically, I think the wording of this section of the guidelines could be interpreted to refer to literally 100% of interviews with bands and/or musicians, which, in my view, is problematic. Not here to seek a change to the wording, just here to get second opinions. I do think the literal read of this phrase excludes any and all interviews with bands/musicians as sources of notability, but I don't think the literal read gets at the spirit of the rule (yay letter of the law spirit of the law confusion). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

If it helps, the reason I think the literal read fails to grasp the spirit of the law is that I would be taken aback to learn that (hypothetical example) a band that had a lengthy interview in the New York Times or Rolling Stone (or Pick Your Ludicrously Notable Source Here) couldn't claim this interview as a source of notability. That said, I can actually imagine rational arguments to the effect that a band -couldn't- use such an interview as a notability source. Hence my hope for some helpful second opinions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the intention of the guideline originally was. However, I do agree that it should not be interpreted too literally - certainly interviews from major sources can establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the concentration should be on "press releases" here, guide your interpretation of the sentence from that. When the band self-releases a press release (or has a MySpace, etc), this is obviously not making them notable. Or if their label releases information, an article, or an interview, that is quite problematic in establishing notability. However, third-party interviews which have statements from the band, would be excluded as they have been published by a notable third-party source. Case by case basis required though I think. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add to the pile-on opinion here: of course interviews with independent reliable sources count towards notability. Fences&Windows 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]