Albums
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

I would simply like to bring up a discussion about why there is so much emphasis on the need for musicians, artists, bands, and albums to have a certain amount of notability in order to have articles? Throughout the years, I have used Wikipedia as a valuable source in researching about various bands and their music that I would not have otherwise discovered had the information not been here, notable or not. It seems to me to kind of defeat the purpose if we're all the sudden only interested in music that's 'important enough' only. Why limit what could be valuable information for people? Some information is better than none. Jair Crawford (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any article needs to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and that will be difficult for artists that received little or no coverage. In the absence of sources that can at least be used to verify content we don't have the basis for an article. Some editors do seem a bit blinkered when it comes to notability concerns and too focussed on whether subjects merit standalone articles rather than looking at the value of the content, but it all comes down to consensus regarding what is appropriate and manageable. --Michig (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it is more of an issue of lack of sources? One reason I'm bringing this up is, I've been interested in finding information about old and rare albums from otherwise popular artists, and in many cases, Wikipedia has the most information on the web about certain albums in that category. But some of them are being PRODed due to lack of notability. The sources issue is a problem because due to the nature of said albums being old and rare, most of the sources on any articles would likely be more personal sources, rather than published articles. However that does not necessarily make the information inaccurate. I just think it would be a shame if a lot of this valuable information got erased because of lack of notability. Jair Crawford (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I understand that there are very good reasons why biographical articles need to be well sourced, but when the artist's notability is well established, I don't see any compelling reason to remove articles about their individual albums or whatever. Unlike BLPs, album articles are rarely problematic, and I've never heard of any reader who wasn't a regular editor having a problem with their inclusion (and tbh I don't really understand why so many editors do). Many pre-internet topics are judged non-notable just because relevant sources are hard to find, though they might have received at least as much coverage in their time as more recent topics whose notability can be demonstrated with online sourcing. If editors insist that obscure releases do not warrant separate articles, merging the information into existing articles would be a far more satisfactory and consensus-based solution than deleting it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michig, albums that are not independently notable, but that are created by artists who are, present a particular problem, and the "value of the content" is the issue. In such cases, the normal course of action would be to delete the album article but also to merge any appropriate, worthwhile material to the artist article. Opinions vary as to how much material is appropriate, of course. For myself (and I take it, Jair and Mild), for any original studio album, e.g., I would want details such as a full track listing, a description of the contributions by other musicians, a picture of the cover, and a summary of the genesis of and the critical and popular reception of the album. However, if all such material is available, it can be ungainly to shove it into the artist article. In such cases, I think the reader is best-served if we break out the material into a separate page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Album information is very useful. It would be a shame to see a lot of valuable information be erased because the albums were not notable enough and the information could not be properly merged into the artist article. Jair Crawford (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely Hobbes, I was explaining the status quo rather than what should be happening. That's all valid encyclopedic content and is generally easily verifiable for albums by notable artists, but a lot of editors will ignore all that if there's a lack of evidence of significant coverage and try to get it deleted. Although the current situation is that articles like this often don't survive without evidence of passing WP:GNG (one of the most misguided inventions that this project has come up with), that's not something that I think is a good thing. If people could put guidelines to one side and only try to delete these articles if the encyclopedia would be improved without them (rarely the case) or if WP:V cannot be satisfied (also rare), we would be in a much better position. A lot of decent album articles (as in most areas if you look what was here 10 years ago) started out with minimal content and no sources. I have argued in the past that we should include more detailed discographies (including tracklistings) in artist articles, which would make album articles that contain only a tracklisting and an infobox redundant. This would give us an easy solution to a whole load of articles that are never going to get beyond that state, but there wasn't consensus.--Michig (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I guess the question is, how can we bring this issue to the attention of the community? I am very new to editing, but I'd be happy to do what I can to help with this issue. I think this is something that needs to be re-examined. Jair Crawford (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely. Notability is not inherited. By extension, if we were talking about a company rather than a band, then every product made by a company would be considered notable by the standard being suggested. If we were discussing a person, then their progeny would be notable using this standard. If we were discussing an actor, then every every piece they performed in would be considered notable whether it's student film, small-stage performance or voice-over for a commercial. This reductio ad absurdum is necessary to show how silly this is. Not every album by every artist or band is notable. There are ways to incorporate the track listing in discography articles or artist articles that doesn't violate WP:N. The only change we need is to clarify what level of notability is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, believe it or not, I wouldn't mind if we had more in depth information about more obscure products or films and other things that are made by otherwise notable people, companies, etc. I like to read Wikipedia to discover things. That's what an encyclopedia is for. Information on subjects. If we become so limiting in the information provided due to lack of notability, then we limit the amount of knowledge that can be discovered. I'm not saying we should treat Wikipedia like a directory or anything like that, just that maybe the current notability guidelines seem a little too tight. Jair Crawford (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that coming from you. Did you know that Hillsong, the collective of musicians that this started over, recorded an album of metal worship? There. Now you've read some in-depth information at the level of the articles I've nominated for deletion. It's as well-referenced as those albums as well. All that's missing is the track names which I won't take the time to make-up. Now, what I'm stating is that what I wrote is unreferenced and is just as valid as the other unreferenced information on the bands. We can't allow unreferenced material to be included if it could be challenged. That's a pillar. From that, we have guidelines that determine what constitutes a notable band, song and album. It all goes back to references. If you want to read about Hillsong and other bands, there are lots of blogs and discussion groups where you can share unreferenced information. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That I can understand and agree with. However those articles were referenced. That's why I said that the current notability guidelines seem a little too tight. Also I want to make sure I'm being clear in that I am in no way bringing this up for any personal reasons from those articles that you PRODed. I honestly did not know that the notability guidelines were so tight on Wikipedia until I noticed that those articles had been PRODed and that led me to having this discussion. So if anything, I should thank you for bringing the guidelines to my attention. I am in no way trying to discredit your work and edits. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but almost all of those albums nominated for deletion are not entirely unreferenced. They are listed at AllMusic or another database, and reviewed by Cross Rhythms. I'm neutral right now on whether that should be enough for an album to stay, but right now guidelines say that's not enough. Now, guidelines can be stretched, or sometimes ignored, but we need a good reason to do so. They can also be changed. But all that aside, I agree with Walter that there has to be something out there to make it notable, and to avoid conflicts of interest, some of that information has to come from a source independent of the subject. Now, Jair Crawford, you could do something like an interview with John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout or Tony Cummings of Cross Rhythms regarding such and such album, and have it published in a way that can be confirmed by others, and then you have a good case to present (I for one think things like oral histories and expert testimonies should be equally allowable as written and video sources). But there has to be some documentation. If you want to argue that one review and some scattered database mentions are enough, then go ahead.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially I'm trying to raise a point that I believe, using this particular case as an example, that the allmusic and Cross Rhythms references should be enough notability for those articles to remain. Those articles have sources. And I don't think that requiring more than that does much more than limit the information available on Wikipedia. That's just my opinion though. I still think it's worthy of discussion, however. If anyone else agrees that the notability guidelines are currently a bit tight, then I figured, why not discuss the possibility of loosening them up? Jair Crawford (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AllMusic entries are not references, they're track listings. An AllMusic reference needs to contain a review from a staff reviewer. they're actually too loose and need to be tightened and clarified. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't realize that about AllMusic. But I'll still stand on my opinion on the Cross Rhythms references. As for the notability guidelines, maybe tight isn't the best word. When I said the guidelines were too tight, I mean they were too strict. More clarity could actually be a good thing. I agree with you there. But I think requiring three to four external reviews is too much. I think if it gets at least one external review, that should be enough. Again, that's just my opinion. But I wanted to bring up the point to see if anyone else agrees. Jair Crawford (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two issues here. Firstly, are details of an album released by a notable artist appropriate content? Secondly, at what point is a standalone article justified for an album? I think most people would agree that the answer to the first question is yes, though with varying opinions on the amount of content; It then comes down to what verifiable encyclopedic information there is and whether that is most appropriately presented in a standalone article, the article about the artist, or in a separate discography article. If we can only find one review, it may be more appropriate to summarize that in the article on the artist. We get far too many articles at PROD or AfD because firstly the article creator has often not considered the appropriateness of creating a standalone article, and secondly because the nominator often hasn't considered any possibilities other than (i) standalone article or (ii) outright deletion. --Michig (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for their input in the matter. Any more input is more than welcome. I've also decided to bring this subject up in the policies section of the village pump. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after all this discussion, and not an awful lot of specifics about what really is good enough to assure an editor that others will agree on whether an album is notable, I am really confused why chart performance has not come up in this discussion. I added a new section below about chart performance and certification, and a somewhat embarrassing rant about how impossible it seems to find good sources that MUST exist but are impossible to find because of the nature of search engines and the info glut everywhere. I just started my first music article, and I thought notability was a no-brainer based on chart performance, but now I can't tell what is required, and it occurs to me that there is absolutely no way for someone like me to put in the hours necessary to write a good article with any sort of assurance it won't be capriciously deleted by someone else with a different understanding of the notability requirements. That is a MAJOR disincentive for putting work into WP articles, knowing they might disappear, and I have no way of predicting it before it happens. Why should I bother putting in all that effort? Dcs002 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a very simple answer to your conundrum: make sure that the subject of your article meets the GNG. If your subject doesn't meet the GNG, the obvious conclusion (regardless of the shifting sands of WP:MUSIC, which guideline will hopefully continue to tighten up over time) is that your subject isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Ravenswing 14:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what the consensus is on the notability of remixes of songs and how much coverage they should receive in articles about the original song. For example, Cedric Gervais' remixes of "Young and Beautiful" and "Summertime Sadness" by Lana Del Rey, and "Adore You" by Miley Cyrus have their own section in these articles and I am wondering whether this is necessary or if a mention of the remix' background and commercial (and maybe critical) success in the article would be enough. Also, should all released remixes be listed in the track listing section as they currently are in the article for "Summertime Sadness? I just think that these articles should cover the work of art as the artist intended it. I think especially the article for "Summertime Sadness" gives the Cedric Gervais remix undue weight. Even though the remix charted higher, it is not the original song which the article is actually about. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they're in the article about the single, that's good. (see WP:NSONGS)

If it's in a section dedicated to the remixes, that's good.

If it's brief mentions, that's good. (see WP:UNDUE)

If it's referenced, that's good. (see WP:V and WP:RS)

If the remix charted in regards to sales or for radio airplay, this should be discussed.

If it takes-up too much space, isn't referenced, and is generally unencyclopedic, I would remove or reduce the material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote up a page for Planet P Project's 1984 release Pink World, and I assumed notability based on it having made Billboard's 200 album chart (only made it to #121, but was on the chart for 14 weeks) and one song hitting #25 on Billboard's Mainstream Rock chart. I want to know if chart position or certification as gold or better, somewhere, maybe multiple somewheres, is enough? (I think it should be - at some threshold level.)

My problem is I can't find reviews and other sources to establish notability through all of the clutter in my Google searches, and I don't know where to look really. I keep getting music retailer customer reviews instead of journalistic reviews. (This is only the 2nd article I have started, and the only music article.) I don't know where to look for info like the number of units sold either. (Google is useless for that. It just returns a list of a thousand music retailers and a few male enhancement products.) Apparently labels don't like to make that info obvious for future sales reasons, and the charting organizations all published expensive paper journals in the 80s, and they want their reprint revenue. Two of the songs on the album had (amazing) videos on MTV and USA Network's Night Flight in 1984 (I have a VHS recording of them), but I can't find a verifiable source for that either, and I don't know where to look. (Search engines like Google ignore Boolean searches nowadays and give you all the garbage anyway. And you can guess what kind of website pinkworld.com is.)

I am not specifically concerned about the notability of Pink World, but shouldn't a recording that hit the Billboard charts be therefore notable? I think we need a clearer way to establish or refute notability that people like me can navigate, and the major charts seem like a no-brainer, but there's no mention of them on this page or on the WP album project pages that I looked at. The rest of the options for establishing notability are so maddening to locate. I am not a regular contributor to WP music articles, but I think that someone like me should have a way to do this, at least to the extent that I know it won't be deleted because someone else hasn't heard of the album and I couldn't find enough sources for what should be obvious based on chart performance. If AllMusic didn't have that review, I might have spent hours working on sourcing this article and only have a single independent source, Billboard (the most authoritative source in the US, maybe the world?), to tell me it's notable. I wouldn't have "multiple sources" that must be out there but I couldn't locate myself. Dcs002 (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned above, the clear way to establish notability is for the subject to meet the GNG. Of course a regular Google search will turn up garbage, which is why at the very least you need to start with a Google News or Highbeam search. Merely making the Billboard charts isn't good enough, since ALL subordinate notability criteria (WP:MUSIC included) work from the assumption that a subject that meets the criteria would likewise meet the GNG, and it's unlikely that the album that just broke #97th on the chart's getting a lot of press.

  If you can't find reviews from legitimate news services on an album (for example), the answer isn't that we need to come up with some metric to determine whether an album is notable or not: the answer is that the album is not notable. Ravenswing 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The GNG says the sources must be detailed (which a page by Billboard showing only the peak position and time on the chart is not), and that multiple sources are "generally expected," not required. It does not say when an article should be nominated for deletion. The lack of readily identifiable quality sources cannot determine the degree of notability. It can only not support it. The problem is not notability, it's the ability of a person with average editorial skills to document notability reliably. This is the Free Encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia for the elite. We need to facilitate participation, not discourage it. Maybe a metric for notability isn't feasible, but a metric for not deleting an article is reasonable.

Chart position alone, at some level, would certainly ensure what you're calling the subordinate GNG criteria are available somewhere. If an album charted at #1 for the year in Billboard and #1 for the year in the UK, for example, we can all be confident that the subordinate criteria would be "meetable", though not necessarily met. This is a matter of degrees, not arbitrary binaries.

Pink World's chart performance suggests that the album may have sold several hundred thousand copies in the US alone. This album is owned (and was paid for) by more people than the entire life's output of any notable painter. (The record holder is Morris Katz with over 280,000 paintings.) That represents extremely widespread individual financial investment. An album that sells 500,000 copies will gross maybe $5-8 million USD, and that money comes from half a million people. There are airplane models that have sold fewer than 70 units, in only one country, and grossed less money than that, with the money coming from fewer than 70 people, yet they are considered notable enough to have their own articles. An album is an economic product, like an airplane, and it is a work of art, like one of Morris Katz' paintings. A painting that sells for over $5-8 million USD is gonna be notable on its own.

There are so many ways to argue that an album like this is notable. It's a matter of evidence availability, not its existence, and finding that evidence before the article gets deleted. It doesn't need "a lot of press," it needs enough press. My not finding it certainly does not mean "the answer is that the album is not notable." (I don't know if you were being facetious.) It's circular to say that notability depends on evidence for notability. Saying something is "not notable" is different than saying I haven't provided evidence for notability. I think you are confusing the two.

The GNG evidence criteria are part of a guideline that is not mandatory, only a guideline. Not meeting that guideline is NOT evidence that a subject is not notable. The onus should be on those who propose deletion to establish non-notability in some manner that others can consider before voting on the question of deletion. Saying that it doesn't meet a non-mandatory notability guideline does not establish non-notability. That type of consensus is built without necessary information and has very little bearing on whether a subject is notable. It only bears on agreement as to whether a non-mandatory guideline has been met. I don't think the GNG was intended to provide guidelines for deletion, but it seems that's how it's being used for music.

This seems to have degenerated into a race to provide evidence before an article gets deleted. I am better at writing than sourcing. If I put my bit out there with some minimal amount of evidence that the album is very notable, even if it's not sufficient to meet GNG criteria, there should be no need to delete it before someone eventually fills in the blanks. Tag it as needing additional sources and leave it alone.Dcs002 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with this. I could not have said it better. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with this. If an article is nominated for an AfD, all that needs to happen is sources need to be supplied at the AfD, not in the article, to show that the subject is notable. Without those sources, the subject is clearly not notable.

It's also a lot easier to recreate an article, with sufficient sources, after it's failed an AfD than it is to try to get an article deleted again if it's passed an AfD.

The idea that one should prove the "non-notablity" of a subject is laughable as well. Wikipedia is a place for notable subjects and it's up to those who create articles to show that subjects are notable, and up to other editors to support that if it truly is. The bar is already low enough for inclusion that it's wrong to change the impetus to nominators. They should already go through WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue though is, like Dcs002 mentioned, it seems like a race to find evidence before deletion. Wouldn't it be easier to have more time to look for evidence with the article still up rather than have to race against the clock on an AfD? I do, however, agree with your point that good effort should be done to find notable sources from the beginning when creating the article.Jair Crawford (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the evidence should be provided when the article is created.

AfDs are not like speedy deletes where you have only a few hours to find sources, AfDs usually last a week and I've seen some last as long as a month. All you have to do is state that you would like some time to look for additional sources and most closing admins will grant that. This happened recently where I nominated about thirty articles that were all created by the same editor and all lacked sources. Many were tagged for over a year. It was my PRODs and later AfDs that finally uncovered sources for about half of them. The AfDs for a few went on for three weeks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Although it depends on the closing admin. They can be pretty fast sometimes. Or so it seems. Then again I'm very new to this. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many articles are tagged as lacking any references at all, and they have been allowed to remain for a great deal of time, over a year in many cases that I have seen in WP. Why is it that album articles are deleted within one to three weeks? I am not always here to defend the case for notability or ask for more time to find the evidence. I might not be editing or discussing articles here for a month at a time. During that time, an article that I spent a lot of effort to start, and which I believed was notable (and heard no suggestion to the contrary) last time I was here, could be nominated for deletion, then deleted, and the one person who has the most interest in refuting the case for deletion might not be involved in the discussion. Articles have to start somewhere, and the person who started the article might just have written an article about a notable topic but not sourced it. Again, why are you in such a hurry to delete articles? Tag them and let them sit for a while. If an article is tagged as needing sources, the people reading it will know that it has the weakness of not being demonstrated as notable or reliable YET, and therefore might have reliability issues, but deleting an article robs the WP community of the opportunity to help establish its notability. WP does not exist to provide a depository for non-notable material, but Walter, you are confusing notability for evidence of notability when you say, "Without those sources, the subject is clearly not notable," and you are advocating deletion instead of offering to help fix things yourself. Sorry, but I think that, by doing so, you are advocating a serious loss and degeneration of the power of WP to 1) provide information on topics people are interested in, and 2) allow a broad spectrum of people to participate in the development of such articles. Again, why the hurry? Allow articles a chance to get off the ground. Dcs002 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should fix the problem of articles being unreferenced for years too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, notability guidelines should only ever be used as a rule of thumb, so we should expect to have to look at each case individually rather than looking to guidelines to give a black and white answer. I know some editors see subject-specific notability guidelines as merely indications that WP:GNG can be satisfied but that's just an opinion, and one that I don't share. Both the GNG and the SNGs are means to an end, that end being to determine whether a subject has encyclopedic relevance. Too many people see GNG as an end in itself in my view. That aside, for albums by notable artists, a key criterion for whether a separate article is merited (whether or not it's 'notable') is the amount of verifiable encyclopedic content about the album (i.e. coming from reliable sources), and whether that could be summarised in an article on the artist or their discography. I tried searching for this album on Highbeam and drew a blank. Google News is unlikely to find much since they abandoned their archive search, and Google Newspapers didn't have anything either, so I think you may need to find some print sources. There are a couple of books that come up in a Google Books search that may be worth checking out: [1], [2]. --Michig (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Alas, you have only one voice, and so do I. I have seen what some people call "consensus" that consists of a lack of objection over a one week period, then deleting large amounts of content or reverting some major change. Not everyone understands that consensus is not the same thing as a majority opinion, and it's certainly not a mere lack of objection. That really concerns me. I have only started two articles, and that takes so much effort, and knowing all that work could be deleted by that kind of process, or by a misunderstanding of the purpose of the GNG - that really, really makes me not want to invest the effort. (I just happen to be passionate about Pink World as an album.) That's a very bad thing for WP - scaring people away from participation. I am not normally here spending hours at a time editing or discussing articles. I might not be here to participate in discussions for deletions if they can happen that fast, or if there are people so intent on eliminating everything they can because they think it is somehow improving WP (or maybe out of bitterness for having been on the receiving end once themselves - I respect that kind of hurt). Sometimes I am not here for weeks. In the meantime people who consider the GNG as representing sufficient criteria for deletion might be discussing, agreeing, and deleting something that takes an enormous amount of work to put together. That is my fear.

On a happier note, I have found one of the sources I was looking for, and it is online. I did not know this, but Billboard has its own online archive of scanned back issues at http://www.billboard.com/magazine-archive. What's more, the scans are searchable (one issue at a time) through a sort of OCR tool in the archive. So there it is, the most respected trade journal actually is accessible! For Pink World, that means I now have two professional reviews (solid footing!) and a bunch of chart data and MTV broadcast information (rotation information anyway). Still, if the guy from AllMusic hadn't written his review, then all of that information would still have come from one source, Billboard. I think it is the highest quality source for notable recorded music, and I think that should matter. There might only be one source, but if it's Billboard, and if it provides a ton of information, again I have to say there should be a holding point where an article has not met notability evidence requirements, but the evidence is of such high quality that the article should not be deleted. Again, I think it should be tagged as needing more sources and left alone. Dcs002 (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certification (on its own) is not a good way to define notability. There are song articles that pre-date the advent of singles and albums and have never charted but pass the GNG/NSONG criteria with flying colours (Think nursery rhymes, national anthems, wartime songs etc) and there are charted songs/albums which will never pass NSONG/GNG. Generally speaking, if something charts there will be enough available sources for that song/album and thereby passing GNG/NSONG. One should also remember that these guidelines relate to article name space, not content, so there is no reason to lose content. At this point I have not seen the Pink World article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting that certification might be usable as an inclusion criterion, not an exclusion criterion. If an album or song has been certified in more than one country, I think that should be enough to keep it, and for classical music releases, I think it is accepted already. I am not suggesting that albums or songs that have not been certified should be deemed not notable. Case in point: Lie: The Love and Terror Cult. But as for losing content, that's not quite true is it. If an album article has been well written and is full of balanced information, but the artist's page is sparse and needs help, then the two cannot be combined without losing a lot of content from the album page. What was balanced on its own becomes wildly disproportionate when combined if that is the case, and it is easier to chop up and remove content from the album than it is to expand the artist content. Saying content doesn't have to be lost because articles are being merged makes it easier to delete articles and in the end lose content. I'm not sure what name space is, but is it really so important as to force these kinds of losses? I've seen this come up before several times, and the answer is always the same when deleting and merging. Content is lost, and it seems such a waste. (Right now the Pink World article does have more content than the Planet P Project article.) Dcs002 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that WP:V demands that we base articles on the content of third-party sources. If you can't find independent third-party sources, there's no way to build a suitable article. It becomes a recitation of primary facts selected based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors, and we don't care about the opinions of Wikipedia editors.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If you can't find independent third-party sources, there's no way to build a suitable article." If I can't find independent third-party sources? This attitude is completely contrary to the whole mission of Wikipedia! It is not up to one single individual to make an article completely acceptable to GNG, especially when GNG is NOT MANDATORY! WP is supposed to be a team effort, and you guys need to realize the priority of fixing things over deleting things because they do not meet a non-mandatory standard. Dcs002 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia at all. No one should create an article unless he has third-party reliable sources in hand when doing so and cite them as he writes. That's the only acceptable technique for creating an article.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you suppose WP has stub class and starter class articles at all? According to your argument, starters and stubs have no place in Wikipedia. They have not met the minimum requirements before being posted, and therefore their creation has not followed "the only acceptable technique for creating an article." You are arguing that responsibility for WP content is not shared, but lain on one person alone, the person who starts the article. That is rigid, black-and-white thinking, and it is not how WP works. It never has been that way except, I now see, in this corner of WP where we discus music. Dcs002 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For stub and starter class articles that are well-referenced. Why do you think that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a guideline? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those tell us what is generally expected of good articles, not what should be deleted if it is absent. The only questions here are notability, acceptable ways of establishing notability in a field in which doing so is uniquely challenging (older, pre-Internet album releases), and a proposal that there are surrogate measures that will assure GNG will be met. Still, there are stub class articles all over WP that do not meet the full notability guidelines and are allowed plenty of time to develop. Again, why is this topic of music so different? No one has even attempted to justify that yet. Dcs002 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an association football league, club, player, manager, official or stadium article is created that doesn't meet the football notability guidelines it is not only nominated for deletion, it's quickly gone. If a software article that doesn't meet notability guidelines is created and it comes to the attention of the project, it's nominated for deletion and deleted. Perhaps you're talking about the hundreds of older articles that have not been nominated for deletion. That's a valid question. I can't speak for other projects, but the real question is why aren't other articles more like the correct way of dealing with this class? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Kww said. The language of WP:V -- which is a core content policy -- and WP:N are unequivocal. If the question you're asking is "How do we rewrite WP:MUSIC so it'll give a pass to articles I want to write about subjects which can't meet the GNG?" then that's the wrong question. Ravenswing 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want WP:MUSIC to give any articles a pass. That would be ignorant and self-centered, and that is NOT what I have been advocating. Please broaden your interpretation of what I am saying, and please stop mis-characterizing my words. I want WP:MUSIC to give articles enough time to be fixed, to meet evidence requirements for notability before deletion, and for music articles that can take a lot more time than for other subjects. Chart position and certification are my proposed means to that end. They are also my proposed way of satisfying existing guidelines because at some minimum threshold, an album that charts well or is certified gold in more than one country WILL meet notability standards, if not the non-mandatory guidelines. Dcs002 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You want WP:MUSIC to give articles enough time to be fixed? Answer: it can't; that's not what SNGs are there to do. SNGs are there to define notability, not to provide ammunition for delaying actions against the deletion of articles lacking proper sourcing.

Truth be told, you're wrong that music articles take a lot longer to source than other subjects; music gets a great deal of press in our culture, after all. The problem is that editors frequently seek -- we see it at AfD all the time -- to establish articles for musical subjects far more obscure than is the case in many other fields. No experienced editor would attempt, say, to create an article about a high school athlete, however locally celebrated, but we see articles all the time about obscure, ephemeral local bands, often backed by claims that the obscure local indie label on which they're signed is a "more important" indie label, or that the local Battle of the Bands victory is a "major" musical competition, or that the group is/was a prominent local exponent of a particular genre.

In any event, I stand by my previous statements. If you want to create articles where sourcing takes a long time to accomplish, then do the sourcing work before posting the article. If the article already exists, and it's under threat of deletion, userfy it until you have the time and energy to source it. It's really that simple. Ravenswing 01:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNG's are non-mandatory, and you are wrong, they do not define notability. They are guidelines to provide reasonable expectations of an article about a notable subject. If they defined notability, then perhaps their use to define articles for deletion might be justified. But they don't. On top of that, I have named two examples of SNG's that do exactly what I'm suggesting: one that allows classical music albums to be generally accepted as notable with more than one major award, and now I just found the Rolling Stone 500 Best album project, where position on that list alone is accepted as enough. There is precedent for what I am proposing here. These are surrogate measures for notability that achieve the same ends.

All this talk about indies and local acts is a red herring. I have proposed nothing of the kind. I have proposed some level of performance on a major chart, or certification in more than one country. At some level, performance on the Billboard 200 will serve at least as reliably as a position on Rolling Stone's 500 Best. There is no room on either for local acts that won the corner bar's Battle of the Bands. Do you understand the difference in magnitude here? (That's magnitude of notability.) A label has to invest tens of thousands of dollars, usually over $100,000 just to produce the album and promote it. Hundreds of thousands of people have to pay at least $10 each for a copy of it. That means high magnitude and widespread notability. Please don't argue about bar bands here.

You might also be surprised at the level of obscurity of articles in other fields. There are several articles about individual neuropeptides that maybe 5,000 people worldwide, mostly neuroscientists and grad students, are ever likely to hear about. Yet they are easy to source because scientists write everything down in journals that are very easy for the lay public to access, unlike music critics. Yes, modern releases will have plenty of reviews circulating, but the article I started was for a 1984 release. There were plenty of articles then too. Where are they now? They are not freely indexed online by the US Government. Dcs002 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does bring up an issue regarding the accessibility of sources. How do we access information that predates the internet and is found mainly in decades-old back-issues of print magazines?--¿3family6 _contribs 02:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a good point. It typically takes longer to track down such sources as well, which can be difficult during an AfD debate. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the creator of the article was responsible for finding them before creating the article. There's never a rush if one does things in the right order.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When did that one individual become the responsible party? I do not own either of the two articles I have started. This is meant to be a community project. We contribute our skills. I am better at writing than I am at sourcing. Should I never be welcome to start an article? Articles are never complete when they start out. They are stubs, or start class. Here they seem to be fair game for rapid deletion if ALL of the evidence is not cited immediately. This is NOT the way articles are handled elsewhere in WP. Why should music articles be any different? Do we really need a stub-free zone? Dcs002 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why libraries exist. Long before the Internet was invented, libraries had decades-worth of old periodicals filed away, and in this day and age, many libraries link up in regional compacts allowing even small rural libraries to draw on big city and university collections. Just flip through the branch's Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature.

And if you can't get it done within the time frame of an AfD? So what? It's very seldom an article gets salted, and in almost every case there's no prejudice against creating it all over again if someone finds proper sourcing. Ravenswing 10:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be no prejudice against someone creating it all over again, but think what that implies. For someone to do that, they must first realize that they are attempting to create an article when a previous article on the same subject has already been deleted. That suggests to me that, regardless of my own opinion on the issue of notability, others have already determined the album was not notable, as was said in the comment explaining why the previous Pink World article was deleted 5 years ago. There is therefore inherent risk in such an undertaking. Second, in starting this article from scratch, I don't know how many hours of work I have now duplicated because the original article is gone.

What I keep hearing is that there is no sure way to know that a new article won't be deleted for notability. Sure, the GNG is a nice guideline, but it is not mandatory, and opinions can vary as to compliance with it. (I.e., I believe the article I just wrote complies with the GNG, but would others agree?)

Did you know that simply being on Rolling Stone's top 500 albums list is sufficient? That is what we need! Something that will tell me that my work won't be in vain. Something easy and certain. Not easy for an album to be notable, but easier to know whether it is notable. Being in Rolling Stone's 500 Best list or being a classical album that has one more than one major award - those are criteria that are not subjective (unless the definition of a major award becomes the next point to argue over). Other projects are recognizing that there are surrogate measures for notability. Why is it such a foreign concept that we do that here? Or that we even consider it here? Dcs002 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the GNG being "mandatory" or not is concerned, if you can demonstrate some cases where an article (that didn't otherwise run afoul of ONEEVENT) had multiple, significant, solid, reliable media sources and was deleted anyway, I'd like to see the AfD record. Beyond that, your argument is very curious. You think the GNG is an undependable standard, but that SNGs -- which are subject to the GNG, and which are frequently revised, your assertion about projects claiming "surrogate measures" notwithstanding -- are permanent and reliable standards? I can only imagine that the subjects about which you want to write are ones where you've already failed to find sources which can pass the GNG, and you're hoping for a backdoor so that you don't have to try.

Sorry, no one can give you a guarantee that your article is untouchable. But you want something "easy and certain?" Write in compliance with the GNG. Don't depend on two solid sources; use more. I've been using just that method for the better part of a decade, and of the several dozen articles I've created, not one has ever been challenged. Ravenswing 07:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have mis-characterized my own words again to the point of being offensive. Imagine what you want. Imply what you want. I would not do such things. I have edited articles here for 4-5 years and started only two! You think I want a back door for non-notable projects I have waiting in the wings? Have you even considered anything I've had to say with that kind of assumption hanging over your head?

I have been writing out of my experience in starting a new article for Pink World. That experience has been very frustrating, and I think we can do better. I think we can do a better job keeping this project in line with the open and public spirit of Wikipedia - ordinary people making something extraordinary - and with the way things are done throughout the rest of WP. Attacking my motives? Aside from the serious disincentive I have been discussing for people to even try to contribute new material to WP (a valid concern I think), you have shown the negativity that can befall a person who has suggestions (and supports them) for improving things. Maybe my suggestions aren't the greatest in the end, but I don't deserve to be treated like this. Please assume my best intention. If you can't, please walk away. Dcs002 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, but what do you expect? You're quite resistant to the GNG standard, and unfortunately, that is the Wikipedia standard for notability. It's not remotely hard to write open and public articles, just the same way it's done all over Wikipedia: write articles that meet the GNG. If your article doesn't qualify, that doesn't mean that the guidelines are wrong, it doesn't mean that people are being nasty or impugning sinister motives to you, it doesn't mean that the haters don't want new material to be posted, and it doesn't mean that the rules lawyers are stifling freedom of expression and the open, public spirit of the encyclopedia. It means that your subject isn't notable enough to qualify. Ravenswing 09:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the section below. That information would have been invaluable to me when I started the Pink World page, and it would have answered most of my concerns in this section. Not the answers I wanted in many cases, but options that exist within WP to keep what I feared from happening. Dcs002 (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was a good time to see what the instructions were when starting a new article. This is above where you are going to edit.

• Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article.
• You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox.
• To use a wizard to create an article, see the Article wizard.
• When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.
• You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/XXXX. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.

I understand the frustration of seeing something deleted which you have curated (I've been there, too!), But the basics are there for anybody who wants to read them. Whether this can be added to, or there is not enough guidance at WP:Yourfirstarticle is a different discussion.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Richhoncho. I did everything on that list except the last item. Given that I am better at writing than I am at sourcing, maybe I should have looked for cooperation from the start rather than spending hours on my own digging through the rubbish heaps of the search engines. I thought that what I had was enough to start out with though. And it was, technically. But I came here and wrote about the possibility that after all that work, an article about something that was clearly notable IMO might be deleted anyway. I have now learned a number of ways of preventing that now, as well as numerous places to find sources, but what about the next person?

One point about those instructions though: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." This is not the same as establishing notability first, or providing sufficient references to establish notability before publishing. It means, IMO, give other editors something to go on, some evidence I didn't just make the whole thing up, evidence that the subject covered is reality-based and likely notable. I haven't argued in favor of posting unsourced stubs. I only said that they are out there and not deleted with the rapidity or treated with the rigidity that music articles seem to be. I have advocated against the deletion of poorly sourced articles if the subject appears (but is not proven) to be notable, if certain minimums exist.

At some point we need to work cooperatively and help to build weak articles before trying to delete them. We need to look at an inadequately sourced article and think of whether we can help make it better - as our first thought. Instead, it seems a lot of people (or maybe a few, very vocal people) look at an inadequately sourced article and think "this doesn't meet notability guidelines as it stands; therefore, it should be deleted, or it should never have been created." Someone who does not have the time or energy to help with an article should not then have the time or energy to delete it, unless it clearly merits speedy deletion. We need to build on each other's work, not tear it down for being insufficient in its current form. That attitude really wound me up in this discussion. Then the attack on my motives really hurt. Is it so hard to accept that someone's hard work is for a good cause, and that their motives are sincere? WP guidelines are not etched in stone, and the reaction to the very suggestion that we revise them baffled me, but it makes sense now in light of the assumption that I wanted a back door for my nonexistent pet projects.

BTW, only 18% of the 500 Greatest Albums project goal is complete. There are stubs on that list - articles with only the album's rankings to establish notability. That might be a good place to start fixing articles instead of deleting them. Dcs002 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are starting a music article and you are concerned about having that article deleted before notability has been fully established, here are a few resources provided by Wikipedia and your fellow Wikipedians to help you find sources and to prevent or delay deletions until you or another editor can finish the job:

1) WP:ALBUM/SOURCES - (To find sources)

This is a list of print and online publications that provide album information and reviews. Many print publications maintain online archives, though several of those require paid subscriptions to gain access.

2) List of record charts - (To find sources)

This is a list of record charts from around the world. While performance on record charts does not establish notability by itself, performance on one or more of these charts can enhance a case for notability (e.g., establish an international pattern of album sales as opposed to regional popularity). Note that not all charts are available online or in English.

3) List of music recording certifications - (To find sources)

Albums and other recorded media can be certified as Silver, Gold, Platinum, or Diamond, depending on the country in which the certification is awarded. This page lists the official certifying organizations from many countries and the levels of certification they award for albums, singles, music downloads, videos, and even ringtones. As with record charts, certification does not by itself necessarily establish notability, but it will strengthen the case. Note again that not all certifying organizations have an online presence, and if they do it might not be in English.

4) WP:DRAFTS - (To prevent deletion)

Editors can create new articles as drafts, which are not required to establish notability or meet most other WP rules or guidelines, as they are considered works in progress. (Exceptions include copyright infringements, vandalism, WP:BLP violations, or blatant advertising or promotion, which will be speedily deleted.) Otherwise, draft articles are available for editors (all editors, not just the draft's creator) to work on until they are satisfactory for publication as a regular article. Note that any editor may change a draft article to a regular published article. If you wish to maintain control over the draft until you decide to release it for publication, an alternative is to keep the draft in your user sandbox or elsewhere in your talk space. Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process. Moving a published article to draft status can also be an alternative to outright deletion.

5) WP:SIGNIF - (To delay deletion by preventing speedy deletion)

Following the criteria on this page will not allow an article to stand if it is not notable, but it provides a way to prevent speedy deletion. Criterion A9 under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states that "An article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met)" is subject to speedy deletion. Including a credible statement about why the recording is significant (a lower standard than notability) under the criteria listed in WP:SIGNIF will prevent speedy deletion. This can buy editors time to locate and cite additional sources, add needed content to the article, or make the article into a draft. Remember, WP:NMG states that an album does not need to be made by a notable artist to merit its own article, but a non-notable artist plus no credible statement of significance means eligibility for speedy deletion.

6) WP:PROJDIR/MUS - (To find people who might be able to help establish notability, or help with the article in other ways)

This is a directory of WikiProjects and task forces that deal with music. Aside from the main music WikiProject, there are others dedicated to numerous genres, music theory, regional music, individual musicians and ensembles, record labels, even record production.

Dcs002 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having an issue here - editor has twice now nominated another article I created for deletion, and when I contested again, dug through the other articles I created, including Chris Wardman, and AFD'd this one too. Seems to me that Wardman meets notability requirements for WP:MUSBIO, at least numbers 1,4,6 (as member of Blue Peter and Breeding Ground per "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles") and 3, as a producer, for McLaren Furnace Room which went Gold in Canada. I note that yes, this policy seems to be for musicians and not producers, but I also can't locate a policy for producers, and since he is both, it would seem to apply. Anyone who can weigh in on that discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I invite interested parties to comment at WT:N#The application of the "presumption" of notability. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Entitiy, which has been proposed for deletion, though i have added substantial more since then. However, since the entire goa/psytrance/progressive music scene can be considered "underground", with no awards, discussions take place mostly in through forums or in magazines which only circulate in the scene/parties, i wonder about general notability of this particular music genre. The artist discussed here, and as mentioned briefly in the article is booked on the major parties (hence in the scene he is considered a star), he is at the top labels of said scene and has published substantially.

However, here at Wikipedia i have the impression that at least some editors judge to fast, and my guess is without any knowledge about the scene and or artist. I looked at the requirements, and guess this article could met maybe, but i conclude that it is not easy to find reviews, let alone any mention in the mainstream media, which normally entirely ignores this genre. Are there any hints how i could further improve the article and how should i approach future, similar artist page creations? Input would be very welcome, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]