• Archive 1 — Top 100 hits, notability for performers, albums, size of countries, genres, record labels, college groups, indie groups
• Archive 2

For song criteria, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs and its talk page.

I propose changing this:

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

I see no reason for the word "extremely". We already make a clear allowance for merge/redirect, in cases where there isn't sufficient material for a stand-alone article. Surely, an entire band of a notable musician has at least as much merit as a non-hit album. We don't restrict album articles to "extremely" notable musicians, so why do we do this for side/old/new bands? --Rob 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the need for some kind of qualifier there. I don't know obscure music, so let me cite an example that is obviously too mainstream to be really good: Page and Plant is a group that had limited success and impact compared to Led Zeppelin. However, Page and Plant is a notable project, even if it doesn't meet other criteria, because of its _especially_ significant members. (Obviously, both of these are clearly notable, though.) I guess the point is, if a band is notable because it's a side project of a particular musician, that musician had better be very clearly notable, or the notability claim is suspect. "Extremely" may be too strong though: how about "Particularly" as a replacement? Mangojuice 05:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in such cases, a merge/redirect is appropriate. I think if somebody types in a band name, and we don't have an article on the band, but we do have an article on a "barely notable" former member of the band, we should always redirect to that person's bio. I think we agree that if somebody "just qualifies" for a bio, we don't want to automatically create articles for every single band they used to play with. However, doing a merge/redirect from those past bands, seems harmless. --Rob 06:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we add requirements for indie musicians? Many artists and record companies which are quite notable as well as influential would be deemed not notable based on the current guidelines and certain user interpretations of them. I have had bands with over ten releases on major and indie labels with much press and a pass on the (debatable) google tests marked for deletion because the band in question was not on the radio or have a gold album or...pick your choice of guidelines used. I hope to help add an independant musician section to these guidelines so that it is clear that all genres and groups cannot be deemed non-notable under the same criteria. I believe that mainstream success should not be utilized to determine 'underground' or 'local' notability. Madangry 02:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to suggest some new guidelines. Tuf-Kat 04:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Independant bands must meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Be signed to a record company which already has a notable existance on Wikipedia. 2. Have one or more releases with notable articles in Wikipedia. 3. Be included in www.allmusic.com. 4. Meet The Google Test. 5. Article contents must be easily verifiable. Madangry 16:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also add that they need to be part of a notable group of collective, sort of like Conor Oberst's emo friends in Omaha or The Elephant Six Collective. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As for independant record companies I see these as a case by case basis...but the NPOV article must have no trouble being verified and all info sourced. See good examples: Plan It X Records, Fat Wreck, Epitaph Records, Recess Records. Madangry 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, see this wonderful explanation that could help in these discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_punk_ethic#Independent_record_labels Madangry 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Too vague, and why does the record company article have to exist before the performer? This just moves the issue from whether or not a band is notable to whether or not the label is notable.
2. Does this mean a song or album that already has an article? That seems unlikely to ever occur.
3. Do you know what their criteria are?
4. To what standard?
5. Wikipedia:Verifiability is already policy

• Tuf-Kat 19:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Responses

--Too vague, and why does the record company article have to exist before the performer? This just moves the issue from whether or not a band is notable to whether or not the label is notable.

-The label doesn't HAVE to per say have an article exist prior to the performer. But if this were the case it would be a good criteria for notability of artist. Not a requirement, a criteria for verifiability

--Does this mean a song or album that already has an article? That seems unlikely to ever occur.

-Not so. For example, an article I created for Four Deadly Questions was done after I deemed them notable enough to include here yet in their case the label and album available and notable enough to have an article existed before the band had enough information to include in wiki. Again, not a requirement, but if it were the case, it would be a good criteria.

--Do you know what their criteria are?

-Whose? Please elaborate.

--To what standard?

-For what? I'm unsure as to what you mean.

--Wikipedia:Verifiability is already policy

-I understand this. But despite that many of the notable artist articles I have started are being set for deletion because DESPITE verifiability these users claim "Does not meet WP:MUSIC", a page which I feel only addresses mainstream media.Madangry 19:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• PS-If these were too vague, I was simply hoping to spark discussion. I do not know what would be good criteria for independant artists/musicians/companies. What I do believe is that users using the WP:Music criteria to delete indie organizations is unfair. Especially when they meet --Wikipedia:Verifiability Madangry 19:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To further expand on my views- "Wikipedia should not place "mainstream = notability" constraints on independent music." (Paraphrased from Japanther delete page comments by Howrealisreal) Madangry 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are already numerous ways for indie bands to be notable, and many indie bands have articles. I'm in favor of adding more guidelines as needed. To clarify:
• Has a record label/release with an article: using Wikipedia to prove notability is not appropriate -- the whole point of these guidelines is to use outside sources
• Allmusic: what standards do they they use?
• Google: far too unreliable, it's extremely easy to grab a large number of google hits through simple spamming. I don't think having an album or label article in Wikipedia is appropriate because
  • Tuf-Kat 07:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think your last comment got cut off....I see what you're saying. Outside sources to prove notability, not Wikipedia. You got me there. Then I have no idea what guidelines to propose for this unfair situation. For Google, I TOTALLY agree that it's a horrid test...but I was running out of guideline ideas. Allmusic's standards? You got me there. I have no idea. But usually I can find artists on there if they aren't too small scale or underground...a very nice database of music samples....... So help me out...for I'm in favor of adding guidelines as needed (obviously)...its just obvious that my suggestions are not only too vague they may be invalid. Does anyone else have any ideas? Any better guidelines for weighing the notability of the "independant" culture? Or am I the only one who is really caring about the need for such? I tried..... Thanks. Madangry 08:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should avoid increasing the number of criteria points. Rather, lets look at something that replaces some of the detailed criteria we have, and is fair to various types (including indie). I suggest going to WP:CORP (subbing the word "band" for "company"). It's fair to indies, because it doesn't require commercial success. But, it does require reliable sources completely independent of the band, to have written about them. That's an indication that a) we have good material to base on article on and b) somebody beyond the band/family/frands have an interest in reading about it. --Rob 08:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loving every minute of it. Thank you for such an amazing work-around. I never would have stumbled upon it myself. But I like this idea very much. Good job. Madangry 08:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The only guideline that would be really applicable would be having "multiple non-trivial published works". Since any band that has a prominent mention in music media already qualifies, this would effectively extend it to bands that may not be featured in music media, but would have coverage in media that are not music-focused. Right? Tuf-Kat 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would extend to non-music media, but also to "non-major" music media *if* its truly independent and reliable (e.g. not one of those sights that reprints whatever the band gives them, and calls it a "review"). It's the "non-major media" part, that would address concerns for indie bands. --Rob 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, and so it would be up to the article writer to establish evidence of such non-trivial published works and for users to determine if such write-ups were biased. Right?Madangry 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the methods for determining notability for self-published and indie bands need work. I understand that nobody wants garage bands on here and the ultimate need is verifiability, but what about bands that simply chose not to be signed to a label? Many are spread consistently via word of mouth, and in some cases may be doing something noteworthy but are not consistently covered by major media, perhaps because it's in major media's interest *not* to tell people about them. Also, why does a creative work need to be printed onto a physical medium and sold in order to be considered a notable piece of work? In today's landscape where self-publishing is taking place at an increasing rate, and permanent verifiability is hard to get, I think it's reasonable to relax the standards of notability to consistent reference in relevant blogs and academic publications. I mean, you have Podcasts with articles on Wikipedia, and the only technical difference is that their work is wrapped up in a 5 line XML document before it gets to the user. --Cellophane 05:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a good point. Soon, requiring music be on physical media, is going to seem like demanding music be on a vinyl record. Also, I think its good to point out the flaws of "major media". Often, major media is part of a larger corporation and they're simply writing to promote their own talent, over their competitors. But, for some reason we give them weight because they're national or international. A small publication, that's independent, may provide much more neutral and reliable coverage. However, while I agree partly with you, I think we can't relax standards on verifiability. Rather, we should focus more on verifiability, and less on fame and fortune. --Rob 08:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, very nice. I whole heartedly agree with Rob and cellophane. As for what kind of work is to be done on determining notability, and what to do until these guidelines are set in place I have no idea. Madangry 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So will a "multiple non-trivial published works" and/or an independant artists section be added to the music guidelines? Consensus? Madangry 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's proposed an independent artists section be added, AFAICT, so no on that one. If you'd like to make a specific change, please propose a specific change first -- what exactly do you want to add?. Tuf-Kat 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment was the proposition for a section to be added. But I guess it doesnt count? You are one tough cat, Tuf-Kat. Ok, I propose we add this new guideline then - Artists having multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media (music or non-music, major or not major, mainstream or not mainstream).
      • It seems kind of silly to have both that criterion and the one about major music media, since presumably anyone that meets the latter would also meet the former, so I've combined the two. Since this discussion hasn't attracted much attention, I've put a clear proposition at the bottom of this page. If no one objects in the next week or so, go ahead and make the change. Tuf-Kat 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. Yes, this works for me. Thank you so much! Madangry 02:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a genre is considered notable, but only has 10 or so artists, doesn't it stand to reason that the notability of those artists should be gauged proportional to the size of the genre rather than in comparison to artists of large genres with thousands of bands? --Cellophane 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I agree...but which genre did you have in mind that only has 10 artists?? (Just interested to know what was on your mind when you posted that...) Madangry 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdcore_hip_hop --Cellophane 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

haha, wow. Madangry 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I agree. I guess my feeling is that the size of the genre has little to do with any individual band's notability. Tuf-Kat 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above conversation, please consider changing:

• Has been prominently featured in any major music media.

To:

• Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media

This would make that guideline roughly equivalent to WP:CORP, and would significantly loosen the guideline. Tuf-Kat 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for reasons given above. --Rob 07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]