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

Is Which Billboard charts are enough to establish notability (as billboard seem to have 1 million and one random charts)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100 and Billboard 200 are the national singles and albums charts - a top 100 placing in either is a good guide to notability. Beyond that I'd say top 20 in the major genre charts is probably enough. There are quite a few other Billboard charts that don't seem much use in judging notability. --Michig (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue a more restrictive valued of "top five" in the niche charts and placing on the two Michig stated are enough to assume the subject meets notability criteria, but it's always best to find additional sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the sales/airplay charts ought to be enough. Genre and market-specific charts are useful empirical indicators of popularity, and the notability standard here makes no mention of cutoffs. The R&B, rock, country, alternative, jazz, even the new age charts - every artist that hits these Billboard charts is notable. Chubbles (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That every charting artist or work is notable is not supported here. That it may be notable is supported. I agree that we have not codified a cut-off in the guidelines, but I regularly have difficulty finding RSes to support notability for subjects on niche charts when they have (or are) works lower than No. 5. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's ever been true (over the lifetime of Wikipedia). Billboard is, itself, an RS, and virtually every artist that reaches the American charts in most genres gets additional coverage beyond it - certainly in rock, pop, country, dance, etc. The exceptions might be the very-out-of-the-way charts, like indigenous roots music - and coverage by Billboard of such groups, I would argue, should be enough to establish them for notability purposes (WP:SYSTEMIC, for instance, comes into play there). Chubbles (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been true. While Billboard is a reliable source, it's just a chart and does not meet the significant coverage portion required for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:MUSIC. The GNG is not required to establish notability - it is one of twelve possible indicators. Chubbles (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MUSIC defers to GNG, which is why the MOS does not state that the criteria confirms that the subject is notable, only that it may be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Never has. --Michig (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain why "may be" is in each guideline section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a guideline, a 'rule of thumb', not a rule. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUM defers to N: All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Similar for WP:NSONG: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation thread directly above this one suggests that the wording of those passages may merit revisiting. Chubbles (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We may indeed need to revisit whether the criteria are written as clearly as possible — but just to clarify, NMUSIC is not intended to constitute an exemption from having to get an artist or recording over WP:GNG. Notability still has to be supported by reliable sources, and the NMUSIC criteria only exist to clarify what counts as a basic notability claim if those reliable sources are present to support it. Nominal passage of a criterion in this list is not a free exemption from having to actually get the subject over GNG — no matter what notability claim the topic claims to have, an article can still be deleted if the topic simply doesn't have the reliable source coverage required.
We have seen articles attempted, for example, about people who had apparently had minor hits in the lower ranges of a Billboard genre chart but were sourceable only to their own self-published PR and not to any real RS coverage — and we have seen articles attempted which claimed that their topic met an NMUSIC criterion, but the claim turned out to be either unverifiable or outright false when we tried to repair the referencing problems. So it's not the claim to passing an NMUSIC criterion that makes a keepable article — it's the ability to properly reference that the person or recording has proper reliable source referencing for the claim.
As for which charts are considered to establish notability, see Wikipedia:Record charts. Billboard is certainly the most famous example of a chart that does, but it isn't the only chart that does. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any claims of satisfying this guideline need to be verifiable, yes, but requiring verifiability and satisfying GNG are not the same thing. --Michig (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michig's absolutely right, there - we can verifiably establish meeting WP:MUSIC with reliable sources but still not meet the GNG. Otherwise, WP:MUSIC, and any other subject-specific guideline, would all be dead letters. Chubbles (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. NMUSIC exists to clarify what counts as a notability claim for a musician, and GNG exists to clarify how that notability claim translates into actually producing a keepable article. Being able to technically verify passage of an NMUSIC criterion does not translate into an exemption from having to actually pass GNG — NMUSIC is the destination and GNG is the road to get there, and nobody gets a free bypass of the Pass-GNG Highway just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion has been claimed. Musicians do not, for example, get a free pass of NMUSIC's "touring" criterion just because their own primary source website, or routine concert listings or the websites of the venues where they played, can technically be shown — the touring criterion is not passed until journalists have written editorial content about the concert performances. And on and so forth: it's the amount of reliable source coverage that can or cannot be shown about a topic, not its mere existence or its own primary source verification of that existence, that determines whether an article gets to exist or not — NMUSIC exists to clarify what kinds of achievements the reliable source coverage needs to show, not as an exemption from having to have reliable source coverage at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to substitute the GNG for WP:V. The GNG is not sine qua non for having an article on Wikipedia; it is not policy, and should not be. If it were, this page would be one bullet long - the first one. All the other criteria mentioned would be moot, since the presence of multiple substantial reliable sources, in absence of any other qualifying criteria, would be both necessary and sufficient for inclusion. Meeting subject-specific guidelines with WP:V information, even in the absence of meeting the GNG, is crucial to the construction of a robust encyclopedia - on topics musical and nonmusical. Chubbles (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page. It is ways that GNG may be met, not a criteria that supersedes GNG in the arena of music. GNG is how V is applied. This guideline simply suggests way that a subject may meet GNG, and relies heavily on V. In short, if no one cares enough to write about, we shouldn't either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page has zero to do with meeting GNG - we have a separate page for that at WP:GNG. Reliable sources provide verification, not satisfying GNG. --Michig (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to write. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and verification in the absence of a GNG pass causes a Wikipedia article to not happen. GNG most certainly is sine qua non of getting a Wikipedia article, because anybody can simply claim absolutely anything if they don't have to prove it — and no, it is not true that "if it were, this page would be one bullet long" either, because a person's media coverage does still have to support something that constitutes a credible notability claim. Even if a band or musician technically passes the charting criterion, for example, it is still entirely possible that we can say nothing else about them that's referenceable to anything but their own primary source advertising bumf about themselves. We have seen articles about bands which claimed a charting hit, but were so poorly covered that it was impossible for our article to even include the band members' names (but an article which can't include such a basic detail is actually worse than no article at all.) And conversely, we do also see people claim that they've passed GNG all the time on the basis of two or three purely local sources that say "local band wins high school battle of the bands competition" and/or "local musician plays open mic at Elephant & Shopkins pub Friday" — so it's not "media coverage exists" or "article claims passage of a notability criterion without sourcing for it", but "media coverage exists in a context which supports passage of a notability criterion". Not one or the other — both things simultaneously, directly and inseparably handcuffed to each other. A band having a Bandcamp page, for example, technically verifies that they exist — but it doesn't get them a Wikipedia article, because it doesn't constitute coverage in a reliable source that's independent of their own PR. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so actually, you are substituting GNG for N. There is no reason to have subject-specific guidelines for notability if the only yardstick for inclusion is the GNG. This, certainly, appears to be a view in the ascendant, and has been for some time, though I of course oppose it. Chubbles (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there most certainly is a reason to have subject-specific guidelines for notability if the primary yardstick for inclusion is GNG, because GNG can technically be "passed" by lots of people who have no substantive reason to belong in an encyclopedia at all — I named several examples in my prior comment of how that can happen, so there's no need to repeat them again. (But I will add that I would qualify to have a Wikipedia article if all I had to show was that two or more pieces of media coverage about me have existed, but I didn't have to show that any of my media coverage actually existed in any context that would actually pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion.) But the same problem also works the other way: if all a person had to do to get into Wikipedia was say they pass a notability criterion, but they didn't have to show any reliable sourcing to demonstrate that anything the article said was actually true, then people could get into Wikipedia by lying about passing a notability criterion that they don't really pass in reality. So it's not GNG or an SNG: it's a GNG-passing volume of coverage that verifies and supports passage of an SNG. Not one or the other: both simultaneously. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should this not define the size of the chart - I guess I've always assumed this was Top 50 max, maybe even Top 20? Draft:One Lady Owner (band) charted in the 'official' chart for one week at position 98, so the creator may think this passes notability by criteria 2, but comparing it to the other criteria a week at 98 does not appear to be in the same ball park. So should this criteria not have a qualification on what actually counts? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've been trying to do that for a long time but some editors steadfastly refuse and use the circular argument that the guideline states only "chart". Others have argued that WP:GNG is the underlying principle, and if the album's charting did not garner secondary press for the band, it's not enough for an article. That would apply here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely oppose some arbitrary cutoff. Reaching a chart is a solid indicator that a musician has reached a level of prominence consistent with inclusion here; even at the lower rungs, that's a more or less bona-fide indicator that one has made it past "garage band" status. It's similar to NSPORT's notability threshold of reaching a major league - even a single game at that level is an indication of having met a threshold of prominence such that an encyclopedia of the subject would/should include the athlete. Chubbles (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chubbles: I don't see them the same really, to play a single game in a major league you have made it into a limited number of games in a limited number of teams in a league. For countries with a Top 200 instead of a Top 40 its like allowing a player who has a game in a minor league in those countries. Also this is for a single not an album which would mean the number of sales to reach 98 is probably really small. In this case the "Official UK Charts" lists 100, but also still mostly refers to the "Top 40 chart" so has it reached the "national music chart" or just the extended list of singles that didn't make it? It's not about defining an "arbitrary cutoff" but defining or clarifying what "national music chart" really means, as WP:NSPORT does with defining what a major league is (at least for many sports). KylieTastic (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of definitional work in establishing national charts in the past here - for the US, Billboard is the standard (though Cashbox placements, I think, would also qualify, since Billboard was not always the single industry standard in the US); in the UK, the Official Charts Co. is that standard. The charts are deep because the music industry in those countries is very strong; to reach #200 on the Billboard 200, you'd have to sell several thousand copies of your album in a single week (or have it streamed tens of thousands of times). There's nothing "minor league" about reaching the lower echelons of the charts. The difference here seems to boil down to one of inclusionism vs. deletionism; I think the encyclopedia is stronger when it includes every musician to chart a hit album or single, which I think is actually a better indicator of importance than the GNG; many musicians who chart a hit reach a level of prominence that thousands of musicians who pass the GNG never muster. Chubbles (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm generally an inclusionist, but I never want to accept an AfC draft if it's just going to be AfDed straight away by a deletionist over interpretation of the guidlines. Hopefully the author can find some more info to show notability. KylieTastic (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that imposing an arbitrary cutoff isn't the way to go here. It's entirely possible for a person with only a low chart placement to have enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG anyway, and it's entirely possible for another person with the same chart placement to have almost no reliable source coverage beyond the ability to nominally verify the chart placement via the chart itself. So the inclusion criterion isn't the chart ranking per se, but how well the article can be referenced. If the article can be referenced properly, then the chart placement is a must-keep notability claim in and of itself — but if it can't be referenced properly, then the chart placement is not an inclusion freebie that exempts it from having to be referenced better. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, ten years ago, the criteria for major awards got changed from won to won or been nominated. The edit comment was, Surely we do not intend to delete Grammy nominees under any circumstances, but we've lumped a number of national awards into the same category as the Grammys, which I don't think is what was intended.

What got me going on this was a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwasiti, that She has been nominated for a major music award in her country. So, I started looking up if indeed just a nomination is good enough, and what major means in this context. I'm pretty sure it was never intended to mean nominated for any national award. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to be an award sponsored by a national government arts council ([1]); it looks to be exactly what is meant by a major music award. That it is awarded by a state council rather than the national music industry, I think, is immaterial, and it has the nice side benefit of perhaps doing some work on WP:CSB as well. Chubbles (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that just "won" would be better than "won or been nominated". After all, no one is nominated for a Grammy without meeting half a dozen of the other possible WP:MUSICBIO criteria. The only way a band should be considered notable without meeting any of the 11 other WP:MUSICBIO criteria is if they actually won a major award, IMO (which Mwasiti did). Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current tour criteria in WP:BAND is too easy to game: "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." If an otherwise unknown Singaporian band plays a tour all over Singapore (an island that is less than 1,000km2), and this is mentioned in the local Singaporian media (as it is sure to be), is that good enough for a Wikipedia article? Kaldari (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore is basically one city - there's no such thing as a national concert tour on that island. Do we see instances of such gaming in actual AfDs? The criterion is useful for establishing notability in large countries with large media bases - most obviously the US, UK, and Canada, though theoretically also places like Russia and China. Chubbles (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should individual albums that are part of a large series of compilation albums be considered individually notable if they appear on any country's national music chart, or should they be discussed as part of the article on the series as a whole?

This would specifically change the guideline The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. to read The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart, and it is not part of a series of compilation albums. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is specifically motivated by the various Now That's What I Call Music! albums; several recent AfDs have suggested the individual album titles should redirect to the article on the series as a whole. As far as other articles effected, the series of Category:20th Century Masters albums currently doesn't have an article on the collection as a whole, and neither do albums like Billboard Top Country Hits: 1990; either a new article on the series would need to be created as a merge target, or they could be merged to some existing page. WP:NALBUM provides a presumption of notability, and while that works well in practice for albums containing original works, I don't feel that it is useful for these compilation albums, which generally are not the subject of long-term interest. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Each album must meet GNG and NALBUM individually. Seems like an extension to WP:NOTINHERIT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, albums don't have to meet GNG if they meet NALBUM. This is one of the subject-specific guidelines referred to in It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline on WP:N. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they do. Just because a subject meets NALBUM doesn't mean it's notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fairly certain that, both according to the letter of the law and in practice, meeting NALBUM is sufficient. If you have an alternative proposal to make clear that meeting NALBUM is not sufficient unless GNG is also met, please feel free to propose it yourself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • To satisfy NALBUM the album must satisfy N/GNG. (See the first sentence.) The numbered points only indicate that a recording may be notable (emphasis mine). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning oppose - I understand this idea when it comes to e.g. Now That's What I Call Music!. The albums often do well, but little is written about them other than their charting and other than coverage of the songs we already include in the articles about those songs and/or the albums they're on and/or the artists. In other words, we don't have a whole lot we can say about them, regardless of their charting. A single list of data (tracks, chart, sales) would seem to suffice in such cases. But then there are cases like Love, Peace & Poetry. The idea of each compilation is to compile psychedelic/garage rock from a different country. "World music" (fraught as that term might be) compilations in general can get coverage that other sorts of compilation series do not because they do not comprise tracks that are already well-known in the countries the albums are released in. In short, I can see this applying to "hits" albums like NOW, but I don't know if it's generalizable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intention was that if these albums get a sufficient amount of coverage, particularly sustained coverage, they would still meet criteria 1, which is not changed in this proposal. Perhaps that is more subtlety than can be expressed in notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think our current standard is easier to interpret than having to decide once something charts if it's a compilation album. We're introducing edge cases where non exists now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a compilation album is well-defined; it's an album where almost all the songs have been previously released on multiple previous albums. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm thinking that Power~enwiki is just wanting an argument. We have two solid arguments against inclusion and one editor siding against, and three complaints from someone who may be forum shopping to get his way. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 66 (U.S. series) or related AfDs, which seem to support not having separate articles, NMUSIC be damned? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT weaponized as policy. Yes, these charting hit album compilations should have articles; this is important cultural documentation that justifiably has a place on Wikipedia. I'm not necessarily opposed to them being merged into larger discographical blocks, but no one even considered trying something like that, which is really indicative of the seriously dysfunctional Wikipedian approach to information about music. Chubbles (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the album is covered extensively in reliable and independent sources, yes, it's notable. If not, it's not. If not, it could of course still be mentioned in a parent or other appropriate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]