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

	Songs
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

We receive a LOT of articles for indie music at AfC, and I'm looking for guidance. We get many self-published but seemingly popular works, some indie label works, and lots of bands that tour and have music available on DIY indie airplay sites. None of this appears to meet wp:NMUSIC. If there are indie labels that are considered "notable", is there a list of these somewhere? Are any of the genre-specific online sites (e.g. metal archives cult nation) considered reliable sources for reviews? What I find is that the indie music folks get fed up with AfC and just go to main space, but then that leads us to AfD, another time sink. I'd like to be able to give the editors creating these articles some clear advice that would save everyone time. If indie music is too marginal for WP (with perhaps some rare exceptions) it would be useful to be able to say so. Any ideas, advice, etc. is welcome! Thanks, LaMona (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few recent examples: Draft:Disposable_(band), Draft:Seizures_(Band). I'll try to find others in the "rejected" list. LaMona (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to take the sources to WP:RSN. Send the creators here and we can discuss. The idea is that not all bands are notable. Not all "national tours" are notable. I've known bands to travel the country in a van and play a bars and other small shows. If the tour doesn't get coverage, it doesn't count. If the band's music isn't being covered by the genre's primary sources, it's likely niche and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither of those two comes close based purely on the sourcing in the articles (other sources may exist). Metal Archives/Encyclopedia Metallum is not a reliable source - I can't point you towards the discussion right now but I know it's been discussed before. I don't think the other you linked above would be considered reliable either. --Michig (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN's archives support that Metal Archives/Encyclopedia Metallum are not a reliable source. It's been discussed three times, and it has twice been confirmed not to be a RS: 1 2 as it's user-edited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's going to be possible to come up with a definitive list of which sites are or are not reliable as there are thousands of webzines, etc. out there. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources might be useful as a starting point. Both of the articles mentioned above are on bands that are metal-related so it may be worth directing the editor(s) concerned to the metal WikiProject for guidance on where to look for coverage. --Michig (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, all. The list of sources is a big help - I can at least point folks to that. Also, I will try to encourage them to engage with related Projects, although in fact most are just trying to promo their bands. Any help with labels? That's another issue -- the music policy says "major labels" and as we know there are indie labels like the grains of sand on the beaches of Seattle and Oslo -- any help in making a determination about "major-ness"? LaMona (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha! Just found . Now, I am going to assume that because WP itself is not a reliable source, being listed in WP does not make a label major. However... using judgment, being on this list may help more than it will hurt, and at least may give sources. Anyone disagree? Or have helpful advice? LaMona (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of record labels comes from a historical perceptive, and I don't keep up on all the labels that crop up, and which ones are experiencing success. The business model has changed so drastically in the last 10 years. See Record label for a discussion on the truly "major" labels. Regarding NMUSIC #5, the definition there regarding "the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)" is about as good as you're going to get. If it helps, WikiProject Record Labels (shameless plug) has an assessment guideline which may be of some use. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would the co-songwriter of a song which went to number one in a very small country meet WP:MUSICBIO? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How small of a country? In my mind, it also depends on the chart. If it were a minor chart in a small country I would say no. If the result was a bleedover into surrounding countries, then possibly. Multiple works would be better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, Walter Görlitz. The country is Malta and the one song is Frontline by Thea Garrett. I found one source that it was no 1 and that it was a Eurovision entry but found very little. It had two writers. Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalia Carneri has revealed what I believe to be a bias towards contemporary artists in our notability requirements for criteria 5. Their needs to be an additional criteria created for those musicians recording pre-1925. Recordings from the early 20th century occurred before the rise of major record labels and the creation of music oriented media publications (making critical coverage difficult to obtain). Newspapers did not cover recordings to same extent that they are covered today. Phonograph records could only hold one or two songs, so the term "album" is not really a fair assessment either. In my opinion, any artist recording during the early years of recording technology should be considered notable for their pioneer work in a burgeoning industry. The historical significance of these recordings and the people who made them should be considered in their notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I think this (as it was framed at WT:N as an RfC) would be more productive if you proposed specific changes to the wording of the criteria, proposed an additional criterion, or asked a specific question. It seems important to note that the criteria are application of Wikipedia's concept of notability, and aren't necessarily based on what's "important", but rather what sorts of things indicate that the subject would have received coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia definitely has a bias towards the recent (see WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM), due in no small part to the availability of sources. These days if a band has a couple albums released by major labels, we can more or less presume coverage in reliable sources. What sort of criteria could we add for older recordings that isn't already included and which is based on the idea of reliable source coverage? A sad reality is that if people weren't writing about things years ago, we can't include them not just because of notability but because of verifiability, standards for reliable sources, and a policy of no original research. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Right down my alley! However, conversely it might be stated that since there were only a few companies in existence, there were only major companies. In the United States, until the vertical-cut disc companies came along about 1912, there were only 3 main companies: Edison, Columbia, and Victor, and then there were the 1904-1908 patent-infringers: Leeds & Catlin (whose article needs a complete re-write), International (has no article!), and American Record Company. These three used the same pool of talent as did Edison, Victor, and Columbia. although the individuals making up the studio orchestras probably differed. Many of the artists from this time period are covered by Jim Walsh articles in Hobbies magazine, by Gracyk's American Recording Pioneers, and by Hoffman's Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound. I'm curious, is there a particular pioneer artist you had in mind that you are concerned may not meet the current notability guidelines? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: Per 4meter4's statement, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amalia_Carneri. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! oops. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extraordinary piece of special pleading. There is no 'bias' against anyone, except those topics which do not meet notability standards. There are clear statements outlining what notability means, and whatever the detailed subsidiary guidelines, the over-riding notability guideline to which they must all conform is clearly set out at WP:GNG. There is a clear guide to notability of recordings in classical music to which Carneri does not conform. 4meter4 would like to add a class of subjects which does not meet any of these standards of notability. The opinion 'any artist recording during the early years of recording technology should be considered notable for their pioneer work in a burgeoning industry' is an open and shut example of WP:NNPOV. No justification is offered except 'in my opinion'. No source or citation is provided to justify it. On this criterion many thousands of musicians who issued or participated in even a single recording would be granted notability simply on the provision of evidence that they had made a recording. It's also WP:OR - in what way were these musicians 'pioneers'? They were jobbing artists who took the commercial opportunities open to them. The pioneers in early recording may well have been the technicians, engineers and entrepreneurs; nothing that Amalia Carneri and the myriads like her did changed the course of sound recording or music simply because they were paid for their sessions. There are so many genuinely notable artists (of before, during and after the period under discussion) who still await articles; opening the floodgates to anyone who made a recording in the period up to 1925 regardless of the clear guidelines given here and at WP:GNG, (and indeed opening them to any other class of potential subjects who catch a particular editor's fancy) will lead simply to a degradation of Wikipedia.

I hope that this inappropriate intervention will not derail the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalia Carneri. That is the place at which discussion should be made on the basis of the value of the article, not on an NNPOV allegation of bias. To make such allegations is not to make a case.--Smerus (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything written about the subject, that should suffice in meeting GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly Zonophone, Edison, and Odeon were major, major international labels at the time, and Favorite would certainly qualify as an important label. I see 4meter4's point, she didn't record any "albums" but certainly recorded enough material for these majors to fill an album. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see how this is "inappropriate intervention" at all. What is this page for, but to discuss the criteria, and at what better time, than when we come to an example that doesn't quite fit? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG specfically does not give as a criterion 'anything written about the subject'.

'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

' "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.'--Smerus (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Rhododendrites, my own feeling is that recording artists from the acoustical period (1895-1925) should have a modified standard of notability. Because recordings during this time could physically only record one or two songs on a record, the concept of "album" is an impossible standard for recording artists from this era to meet. We are effectively not including them by making "album" a requirement because albums did not exist yet. Further, almost all of the major record labels of today did not exist then. Most of the record companies that were active from 1895-1925 are no longer in existence or have been acquired by the major labels that were established post 1930. The requirement of a major label is also discriminatory of recordings from 1895-1930. My own suggestion for a modified criterion for musicians that recorded from 1895-1925 is that they made a minimum of three recordings with a record label (any label since these were the first labels). I am of course open to other ideas on what a fair modification might be, but to dismiss the idea that these standards aren't biased is to ignore the reality of what was physically possible back then. If anyone is interested in learning more about this era; I suggest reading this book which describes the technological limitations of the era and the history of early recordings. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an SNG, like this one, is to call out things that are very likely to have sufficient reference material out there to meet GNG, even if it hasn't been cited in the article yet. In this case, as stated above, we can presume a band with several major label releases, which has been nominated for a major award, etc., etc., almost certainly has had that type of coverage, and it's out there somewhere. But they're not exemptions or exceptions to the GNG. Since you're saying it isn't highly likely that the GNG is met for these older artists or bands, adding that to the SNG would be confusing and counterproductive. If there aren't enough references to sustain a full article, it's possible there's a parent article or list that could contain the information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability are not being challenged in anyway here by my request. In the case of the AFD above, their are eight cited references for the material; and certainly excellent sourcing for the subject's recording achievements with multiple record labels. I am not advocating for original research. All content should have citations, and any uncited material should be subject to removal. Much of the uncited biographic information in the Amalia Carneri could be removed. The cited and verifiable material on her recordings, however, is what makes her notable. There is plenty of information available on many of these artists, yet they could potentially fail an AFD because of the bias in criteria 5. This is a notability issue. Not a veracity issue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about challenging verifiability. If this subject passes the GNG, then it doesn't matter if they pass #5. Indeed, passing the GNG is criterion #1 even for this specific guideline. But before altering the SNG, we'd need to be really certain that most of what it would call out really would pass the GNG, or else it'd be bad and confusing advice as to what's very likely to be acceptable. But passing the GNG always clears the notability hurdle. GNG is a higher standard than verifiability. I verifiably exist, but I am not, by our standards, sufficiently notable that an article could be written about me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The concern here is not WP:GNG,a guideline, but a violation of WP:NPOV, a policy. Wikipedia shouldn't allow systemic bias. Policy violations are of a higher concern.4meter4 (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you exist is a non sequitur. No one questions that, but your making an argument against WP:EXISTS which isn't the topic of discussion. What is verifiable in Carneri's case is that she had an international concert career, and made recordings for multiples of the most major of record labels in an era when VERY FEW people made recordings. Both of these are strong indications of notability. If it became verifiable that Seraphimblade made multiple recordings for major record labels as the featured artist, and that he had an international recording career, I would argue that he was notable. Unfortunately, it's only verifiable that he's just a Wikipedia editor who cares about the quality of our articles. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue here is that criteria 5 contains an anachronism, and anachronisms are not allowed in guidelines. So the guideline has to be modified. ASAP. James500 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly support. It is entirely correct that historical topics should have different criteria in order to avoid systematic bias against them. There can be no doubt that such bias exists on the part of the sources we use because, amongst other things, there is more publishing today than there was in the past, because people are wealthier and can afford to buy more books etc. There is a similar proposal at WP:NHISTORY to which such criteria can be added. I won't rehash all the arguments for such criteria, but I agree with the arguments of the proposer, User:4meter4. The purpose of SNG is to identify topics that are "notable" in the ordinary sense of that word (ie significant enough to deserve attention in the words of BIO), not topics that satisfy GNG. GNG is not notability, it is only a proxy for notability, and it is too subjective to be a satisfactory one. James500 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support concept although the particulars need to be worked out. (Thinking out loud) My fellow editors should know that my perspective is American, I don't know as much about the early recording industry in Europe. I'm not sure the cutoff date should be as late as 1925, as by that time sound recording was a mature industry. I might suggest as early as 1905 (any physical specimen of that age is sought out for its age and rarity, and any performer would truly be a pioneer as the recordings are by necessity influential both musically and technologically) to as late as 1915 (when many new companies entered the market as patents began to expire). Most of the early recording performers were either a)established vaudevillians or b)established opera performers, if not outright stars. In both cases there should be in-depth secondary sources available on the subject, the problem is finding them as most have not been digitized. This is not circumventing GNG, it is establishing a criteria by which notability is assessed in such a way that GNG would almost certainly be met if all sources were readily available by magic, which is really the whole point of most of the individual NMUSIC criteria. The question becomes regarding performers of ethnic music. These early ethnic performances were highly influential on whole genres of music in the United States, but you won't find English-language sources on them. If they exist, they will be in foreign-language publications for domestic consumption, and these are less-digitized than most English sources. In any case, using albums as a criteria for pre-1950 recording artists is untenable. Non-classical/operatic albums pre-1940 are exceedingly scarce, and only a few artists released the pre-packaged collections of 78rpm singles that became known as albums before the introduction of the LP record. The emphasis was always on the single. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalia Carneri has closed as keep, I truly hope that this conversation will not die. My intention in bringing this up was not to rescue one article but to eradicate the bias in criteria 5 which still exists. As User:James500 has pointed out, criteria 5 does contain a technological anachronism which places a bias against recordings made before 1945. Even in the electrical era of recording technology from 1925-1945 there was a limited amount of music that could fit on a record. Opera arias, for example, often removed verses to fit them on recordings during this era. Albums really didn't come into play until the mid to late 1940s. That is why singles were so important and the more usual format during the early 1940s. This bias has a tremendous effect on AFD conversations about musicians recording from 1895-1945; a fifty year window. We are potentially systemically deleting articles on notable artists who aren't so fortunate to draw the attention of experienced researchers. The success at sourcing an article on Amalia Carneri by experienced editors, just goes to show that there are sources available for these individuals if one knows where to look. For this reason, I don't find arguments about WP:GNG convincing. If anything, we've shown that sources do exist. Further, those arguing GNG have chosen to ignore the salient point of this arguement; that notability guidelines shouldn't be designed around anachronisms. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm coming quite late to the party, as it were, but I find this whole line of argument ridiculous. MUSICBIO has any number of criteria which, if you choose to view notability criteria through a certain lens, is "biased" against musicians from earlier periods. You would be hard pressed to find 18th century musicians, say, who have charted singles, gold-certified records, Grammy awards, or have performed for film or TV shows. Suggesting that criterion #5 uniquely screws over pre-WWII musicians because few might qualify under it is just as nonsensical; the obvious answer, as in this AfD, is to find other methods of sourcing. Ravenswing 10:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the bias either. If the sources are there then it will get an article and it will be kept. As was the case here. The major issue I find with music articles that relate to older artist and classical music in particular is the widespread copyright violation that appears to be going on. Including this one initially. To such an extent that anytime I go through the cleanup listing for Wikiproject musicians and encounter one, the first thing i do is an Earwig copyvio check. Case in point, yesterday I noticed the Franz Xaver Süssmayr page being changed drastically only to find out that someone had copied her own blog into the text (see the Talk page for her comment). Karst (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSONGS is concerned with whether an article about a song should exist. Strangely, at the end of NSONGS, this admonishment about article content appears: "Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position." I'm going to remove it as I can't see how this adds anything to WP:OR or WP:SYN. Also, it's about article content not about notability, so shouldn't be in this guideline. LK (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the awards listed on K-pop articles and I'm not sure how to judge some of them. What makes an award eligible for inclusion? Here are some of the awards so you get the idea. They are all 100% based on fan voting as far as I can tell.

• International K-Music Awards, hosted by online magazine Japako Music
• JpopAsia Music Awards, run by JpopAsia (J-pop news site)
• KMC Awards, run by KMC Radio
• SBS PopAsia Awards, run by SBS PopAsia

I wasn't sure where to post this question, so I hope this is the right place. Random86 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the large number of awards included on most K-pop pages as well, and wondered about their notability. I suppose we need to check if there are any third party sources that have published on the award. Karst (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to add information about the cover of a specific song, but the recoding has never been released, it has only been shown on a television advertising campaign, is this suitable for inclusion in the article about the song. To be specific, I mean that the airline Qantas has used the song Feels Like Home in an advertising campaign, (see [http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-launches-feels-like-home-ad-campaign-20141107-11ij4l.html). - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikipedia:Notability (music) topic (unless you're planning to start a separate article on that specific cover?). The question seems to be about whether or not the information passes WP:TRIVIA (which is another guideline), for inclusion in an article. See guidance at that guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: I have no intention to create a separate article on the cover as it is not an album, I think it is an issue more of notability than anything else. Call me crazy, but I'm not WP:BOLD, considering that the artist of that cover does not have an article herself. And I'm also not bold to create an article on that either. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article *content* is not covered by the "notability" series of guidelines (notability guidelines are only about whether an article should exist or not). Your question is about a WP:TRIVIA issue, your reply has made that completely clear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NSONGS is quite restrictive and paragraph is contradictory as a single paragraph, I suspect a line-feed has been dropped somewhere along the way.

1. Add a line feed (new paragraph) in the second paragraph, these are two separate thoughts. Without the line-feed, the guidance infers that album reviews are not independent.
2. Add the Film qualifier from NSONGS and remove it from NALBUMS if necessary. Why should an Album inherit notability from a single song, when the song itself cannot have an article?
3. A professional review from an RS source, especially when the song is mentioned in prose should count for evidence of notability.

The improved section would read as follows:

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject^[1] of multiple, non-trivial^[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.^[3]

added line-feed Coverage of a song in the context of an album review alone does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
4. added The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions.

• Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
• Note 2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed-on secondary content. Wikiversity and Wikibooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues for this type of content.

There is an AfD discussion going on at Draft:Never Gonna Be the Same Again that might interest commentators -- (I have a COI -- friends on the song -- therefore AfC). Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]