Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Session musicians

How and when does work as a session musician (whether in the studio or on tour) confer notability? Certainly, some session musicians are notable for their session work alone--but what threshold should we apply? If someone plays in the pit band for a notable Broadway production (and has his name on the program), or receives an album credit for session work (but is not part of the band), or tours with a notable band... is this notable? --EngineerScotty 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not really possible to set a guideline - if they're notable, it should be proven by the existence of independent, reliable sources. Without that, I'd say session musicians can be assumed to be un-notable. Tuf-Kat 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
To dig a bit further. Would a simple credit on an album cover, theatre playbill, or a motion picture's end credits qualify, or are you referring to an independent source, such as a critic's opinion, where the session musician is specifically mentioned (other than noting his/her presense at the recording session or performance)? I would think the latter; otherwise anybody who ever played with any notable band might be able to claim notability. --EngineerScotty 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your reasoning here. Why would they not be "notable"? --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, why would they not be notable? Just because a musician has done little or no solo work, does not mean they are not incredibly talented. I agree with needing reliable sources, i.e. album/movie credits, playbills, etc., and with that, makes them notable enough for me as well. Cricket02 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We do not, and can not, include biographical articles on the basis of who's talented. The way we determine significance for entertainers is by the press they're getting. Someone might put out a record that gets reviewed by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and many other major publications. This is a pretty solid indicator of significance even if the reviews say the record stinks. It's all about coverage in good sources. Friday (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Albums for sale on amazon.com, barnes and noble, etc.

On a current musician-related AfD (I won't say which one here, in order to avoid the appearance of undue influence), it was suggested by an editor that the fact the subject had albums for sale on amazon.com, Barnes and Noble.com, CD Baby, or similar sites, might be an indicator of notability. As far as I can tell (at least from Amazon site policies); the threshold for getting an album listed for sale on either of these sites is very low. While this is a good thing for independent musicians (who can thus have another sales channel, without needing the services of a record label), this fact seems to suggest that being offered for sale in these places is a poor indicator of notability. I (a pretty piss-poor musician) could probably cut a record and hawk it on Amazon, were I to invest a small amount of time and money into doing so (fortunately for the world; I will take a pass on this avenue to fame and fortune); however, simply being offered for sale there wouldn't make me worthy of an article here. Likewise, I can think of numerous local bands I like, currently not meeting this policy, who would suddenly be Wikipedia-worthy were amazon et al to be considered indicators of notablity.

Comments?

--EngineerScotty 22:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we have really poor gauges of notability for music in the first place. There are lots of musicians which list mixtapes as releases and claim notability because of "success" of those so-called releases, even though it is inherently unverifiable. We can't even nail down the definition of a mixtape! (See above in this talk:section.)
The guideline says that the releases have to be on a major label. But we have little definition of what "notable" means. I tried to dig into it; I thik the "big 5" labels have about 80% of the market, but that means 20% of the records in the world are being released by some other labels. And even that's confusing; some imprint might be a subsidiary (tightly or loosely) of some label, and it's not always easy to track that down.
So I think asking about sales availability is treating the symptom and not the problem.
That all said, I've used amazon and tower availability as a way to disprove notability in AfD. That is, since those sites would sell anything they could, and an artist isn't listed there, they must not be notable at all because they don't have their distribution chain worked out, if the only place you can get the release (which probably turns out to be a "mixtape") is at <not_notable_aritist_name_here>.com.
-- Mikeblas 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It takes absolutely nothing to be listed on those sites, so they're not a good indicator, as much as I'd like them to be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Being listed on these sites proves nothing (though as Mikeblas said, not being listed may be evidence). However, having a strong sales ranking on one of those major sites might prove something. It should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
By this standard the suggested resource in the music notability guidelines, allmusic.com , would come into question since the site's content is submission driven by products (CDs) and press releases submitted by labels, publishers, and individual recording artists. One merely has to send in a CD and press release and it will eventually show up there database. So that site is more a reflection of product placement.

AudioJin 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on major label market share are being interpreted incorrectly. 80% market share does not mean major labels are releasing 80% of the records. In fact, the vast majority of records are not major label releases, due to the extremely high cost and high risk of the major label release, marketing, promotion, and distribution methods. Zirconst 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My revert

I just reverted an addition of NPOV as something that an article must have to pass this guideline. I didn't revert because I necessarily disagree, but because it's a big enough change it needs to be discussed here first. Tuf-Kat 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-reverted based on a misunderstanding and your re-re-revert edit summary cleared it up. The previous editor may have made the same error. Phr (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Thinking about it further, I support the change. Excessively promotional stuff should be treated as spam. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spam#.22Delete._Spam.22_and_.22Delete._Advertisement.22 where jdavidb says
If an article can be NPOV'ed, and there's someone around who wants to and has time to NPOV it, great. I have personally seen some AFD requests turn into NPOV'ing of the article, and everyone benefits. But just because some vandal shows up to advertise his company does not obligate us to put "clean up this guy's mess" on our todo list. If nobody can or wants to NPOV it, we're going to delete it. Wikipedia is not a blank wall for people to put their billboards up on. We are justly and rightly angry when people try to use it for advertising. People who come by for a day and plant their advertising have no say on the subject; the people who remain have every right to clean up the mess.
I support jdavidb's reasoning above. I agree that a change like that should be discussed first, and I'm mostly supporting applying this to vanity/promotional articles (of which there are a lot), not to every case where an article written by a fan gets a little bit over-subjective. Phr (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My primary concern is keeping the Wikipedia namespace orderly. This page is about notability and music. If we want to discuss deleting spam, that's not part of this page's scope. Better to have narrowly-focused pages, I think. Tuf-Kat 21:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Certified Gold

The criteria currently says "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country." The only certificaiton I know about is done by the RIAA. That's the Recording Industry Association of America. How does this certiciation criteria apply to albums released in other countries? -- Mikeblas 19:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about "Certified sales of N copies" where N is however many are needed for RIAA gold certification. Phr (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Choosing a number might not work because markets have different sizes, and therefore have different measures of notable sales success. Selling 500,000 units in the US isn't big news; doing so in Japan is more notable, and doing so in the Phillipines is massive. -- Mikeblas 18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
1. There's a list of gold record nations and threshold counts in Music recording sales certification#List of international sales certification thresholds. While that list apparently needs some cleanup, it could become a useful reference to replace the vague "large or medium-sized country" qualifier.
2. Should notability include the "silver" awards issued in France, the Ukraine and the UK?
3. For nations without a music sales certification program, a threshold could be computed as a percentage of the national population e.g. USA gold status count of 500 000 is 0.17% the national population (based on Wikipedia's page for the country); UK is also around 0.17%, Canada is 0.15%.
Dl2000 18:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Media Exposure

WP:MUSIC says "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)."

Yet, in this deletion review discussion, users are interpreting it in a way I find very confusing. Somehow, two major media mentions aren't enough, even though two is "multiple," and then they're suspending the debate to see just how extensive the coverage is in what will be the third major media mention, which as far as I can tell WP:MUSIC is concerned, is entirely irrelevant.

Is this what WP:MUSIC says, or are these guys misinterpreting it or avoiding it? It seems as clear as day to me: the band qualifies as notable. You guys are the experts, what do you think? --216.231.62.139 09:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This guideline is deliberately vague in some ways, so as to allow for personal discretion and common sense on AfD. These guidelines are not a strict mechanical algorithm to determine notability - they're just broad guidelines that reflect some established ideas on how to measure notability. Tuf-Kat 01:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the definition of "reliable and reputable media" include zines? It should. But the policy needs to be defined, as not all zines are equally important. We should also be more specific about blogs. There are music-related blogs and podcasts with sizable audiences and demonstrable influence. What criteria can we use to distinguish the reputable music blog from the non-reputable one? Audience size, longevity, syndicated content, mention in other media, _____ ? --Jeandjinni 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a blog post should be the ONLY source of notability, even if popular. If a band or other group of musicians are notable, they'll also appear elsewhere.
The top-quality blogs are valid reference sources, but I'm not sure a band mentioned on one of them but not yet anywhere else is necessarily notable. Adam Cuerden talk 10:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Headliners vs. support acts

I added a disclaimer that touring acts should at least headline their national tour. It doesn't really establish notability if you drive around in a van but no local club gives you top billing. Getting top billing internationally is usually much harder, so I left it out of the text. Please feel free to comment. ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like that part either, because as you say sometimes a "national tour" is just guys spending a lot of time driving around. Any number of insignificant bands play over a wide geographic area. Does anyone object to simplifying this and instead of "international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1]" just saying something like "major tour"? Saying what does or doesn't qualify is still a matter of judgment, of course. I don't think headlining is that important- a supporting act on a major tour is generally a bigger band than the headliner of the "let's drive around in Gary's car" tour. Friday (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The size of the venue, and the manner of admission, surely makes a difference. A tour consisting of paid performances in medium-sized (at least hundreds in the audience) concert halls or venues is surely more notable than a "tour" consisting of gigs playing for tips in corner bars, wherein the patrons are more interested in their pool game than they are in the band on stage. But still, major billing is important; there are many tours which invite non-notable bands along, who then play their set with the house lights still on and the amps turned down, while the audience files in to hear the real show. --EngineerScotty 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree, I wouldn't consider either bands with bottom billing at Warped, "van" bands or supporting bands notable per se. Also, bands have 12 criteria, only one of which they have to fulfill (plus "special consideration"), so we should make the criteria themselves somewhat exclusive. How do we express those "mid-level" criteria? "Concert hall rather than club tour"? "Center billing on festival tours"? ~ trialsanderrors 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I made an edit to try to make the language less absolute, and changed it to "major tour". I'm not sure we can or should come up with an exact definition for that. Friday (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • What's wrong with a club tour, exactly? Hell, plenty of venues double as bars, where otherwise notable bands and artists play. It's too restrictive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A tour is a tour is a tour, and headlining certainly shouldn't matter. This guideline is about separating your buddy's garage band from groups that actually attempt to work and tour and grow an audience. Now, with a "major tour" change, it's likely to become more exclusionary. I've said it before, I'll say it again - if a band/artist can be shown to have toured even regionally, outside of its "home base", it should be fine. If a band plays 20 club dates up and down the coast, but doesn't cross the Mississippi, what's the argument for exclusion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No it's clearly not an argument for exclusion, as the bands still have 11 other criteria they can fulfill. But if a band has done nothing but play up and down the coast, it seems insufficient for me. I think "major" captures the "van" bands, but it doesn't capture the "bottom billing" bands. ~ trialsanderrors 17:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
(ec) Sure, but you disagree with pretty much any barrier to entry to the encyclopedia. Most editors don't share that view. For me, it's all about verifiability- the guidelines are just rules of thumb. To me, just getting gigs is the bare mimimum to even be a real band. Surely an encyclopedic band needs more recognition than just getting people to pay them? I do appreciate the fact that some significant music venues are essentially bars- the Viper Room for example. Nothing wrong with that. Albert Einstein had a job, sure, but not everyone gets in the 'pedia just on virtue of having a job. To me, being in a working band is comparable to having a job. It's a start, but it's far, far from being an indicator of encyclopedic significance. That said, if anyone disagrees with my changes, feel free to edit them as needed. Friday (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that's not very fair. I don't think there should be *no* limitations, but we need to draw the line clearly. Is there any significant examples you can think of that a band stuck around because the touring requirement wasn't strict enough? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry bout that- wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, it just sounded to me like you were opposing anything that makes it hard for bands to get included. I don't have specific examples of what you're asking, but my memory tells me we've had bands argue along the lines of "Look, we played over a wide geographic area, therefore it's a national tour, therefore we MUST be kept." This is bollocks. Take, for example, a band I know, playing nearly every day this month, from Texas, to California, to Florida, and many places in between. Sounds like a big deal tour, right? Well, wrong. These guys are driving everywhere they can, sometimes lucky to just be breaking even, in an effort to get discovered. They're all over the internet because they're big self-promoters, but there's no real media coverage here. We must rely on proper sources to establish what's a major tour or not- otherwise we're just introducing bias in favor of whoever's willing to drive far, not whoever's verifiable. Friday (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't oppose some sort of line to be drawn, but I do oppose making it harder than it already is, especially when the current guideline, as flawed as I feel it is, seems to be doing well. If that bands is touring and getting gigs and building an audience, I don't really see the problem in including them. The problem with the new wording is that it has become ambiguous - what's a "major" tour? A headlining tour of clubs has less of an audience than opening on an arena tour. A 15 date theater tour or a 40 date bar/club gig series? The original wording was clear enough, and rarely caused problems, I don't see what this solves except raising more questions. I'd prefer it to be "Has done a national tour in a small or medium sized country, a regional tour in a large country, or has toured internationally." It solves the problem of so-called "self-promoters," while drawing a very clear line in the sand as to what is viable, and doesn't need it to be "headlining," as a band's billing is largely decided by the place booking them and not the band themselves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Working and touring and growing an audience--is that sufficient? Or are we looking for bands (ignoring here bands which are notable for artistic measurement rather than popularity) which have demonstrably grown an audience? One of the essential ingredients to whether or not a subject is "notable" is that someone else gives a shit, and this can be demonstrated under the auspicies of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Bands which are very active at promotion (including touring, issuing records, and other aspects of PR) but which don't have either a fanbase or a critical following, aren't notable. A band which goes on tour but mostly plays to empty seats, or to fans who have shown up to hear someone else, isn't notable. The purpose of the "tour" requirement is it provides one way to demonstrate that people will pay money to see the band, which shows that the band has a fanbase and is therefore notable. It seems to me that for a tour to confer notability, it ought to be demonstrable that a) the band played before a significnat paying audience who was there to hear them, and not the headline act that followed. --EngineerScotty 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, if we need to base things on "notability," then we need to have something to put out there. If it's touring and issuing records outside of its own minor sphere, it has some notability, and I don't know why we need to tighten the regulations further. I'm not convinced it's a problem that needs to be solved. If a band is touring with a larger band, they're playing in front of hundreds of thousands of people, they're leaving their own sphere. I can't count the number of opening bands I've seen that I hadn't heard of before, but blew me out of the water, there are way too many. By somehow saying that "Since they didn't headline, it doesn't count," it's being exclusionary for no apparent purpose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • A national or regional tour has the advantage (for the artist) that it is likely to generate publicity (concert reviews, etc) in multiple locations. If the tour were to produce useful critical commentary from multiple newspapers (or other media sources) in multiple cities--in other words, if the band made music critics in different places take notice--that to me would satisfy the guideline. If, OTOH, media coverage of the tour scarcely mentioned the band (other than noting they were on the playbill), that would suggest to me that they were in the "also invited to perform" category. With tours consisting of multiple acts, it is difficult to sort out which acts attracted fans (it could be all of them, or just one headliner), and which acts where just happy to be there (so they might be able to make fans who came to here someone else); the existence of critical commentary is useful in telling the two groups apart. --EngineerScotty 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • This harkens back to what I noted above - we're switching from mostly clear and objective to ambiguous. We're better off leaving it as is rather than adopting this change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree with Scotty and Friday. Notability guidelines are there establish what levels of exposure are undoubtledly notable. They will always be superceded by a well-written, well-sourced article. In essence we are saying that if you meet one of the 12, we have no doubts that there are enough sources out there to write a balanced article, even if the article in its current state doesn't mention them. ~ trialsanderrors 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, that isn't always true in practice; many in an AfD will vote delete if none of WP:MUSIC are satisfied, no matter how well-written or sourced the article is otherwise. (Of course, the best way around this is problem is to avoid AfD in the first place, by writing an article which does't trigger the delete fingers of skeptical editors)--EngineerScotty 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • That, unfortunately, expects new editors to know of all these guidelines, which isn't always the case. Luckily, I've been able to save some of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
        • If that's true that's is fairly clear grounds for abolition of the notability guidelines, because if they're used that way they clearly go against policy. Re jeff, "blew me out of the water" is sadly enough not an inclusion criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, they are guidelines. In an AfD, the only thing that really matters is the opinion of the editors who vote; when an admin comes along and closes an AfD on the basis of "this band meets [WP:MUSIC]] because of X", such decisions tend to get hauled to deletion review. Joseph Patrick Moore is, of course, the example du jour. :) And there are some editors who take a narrow view of who should be included (far narrower than WP:MUSIC), and others who take a wide open view. --EngineerScotty 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Touring and significance

badlydrawnjeff, when you say "I can't count the number of opening bands I've seen that I hadn't heard of before, but blew me out of the water, there are way too many" it sounds like you're wanting to include bands on the basis of being a good band. This something we absolutely connot do here. We're not here to do original research and cover bands we like- that's what the music press is for. We're only here to make encyclopedia articles about bands that have already gotten significant coverage by the music press. Friday (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying "The band impressed the editor" should be a criterion, but that a band's billing should not be one, as it is not a useful indicator of notability. I don't know how it came across that way, but it wasn't my intent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Reading it again, I wouldn't be opposed to "significant" as opposed to "major." It would eliminate the "drive into town and find a gig when we get there" type, eliminate the "we played in six dive bars with no cover charge" types, and wouldn't discriminate subjectively against acts that might end up as a support act. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
How about "Is on the roster of an established booking agency"? That includes billions.com, bseliger.de, but takes out fly-by-nighters (or drive-van-by-nighters...). ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Why discriminate against DIY acts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Because we're looking for tangible criteria here? A band that is notable enough but decides on its own volition to do a DIY tour will come in under some other criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
how do we know that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
how do we know what? ~ trialsanderrors 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[Edcon] Not including opening acts in the inclusion criteria is not exclusionary without purpose. Opening acts by experience receive less outside attention than headliners, with few notable exceptions. But the exceptions will automatically come in under "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works". If no one notices how blow-out-of-the-water-good the opening band is we can't include them per Friday. ~ trialsanderrors 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose, though. The purpose seems only to be exclusionary, and without any apparent reason except to keep more bands out. Don't harp on the "blow out of the water" thing, it's not what I'm getting at. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
(ec) I don't see how billing could possibly NOT be a useful indicator- if a band is headlining a major tour, it means that some major sponsors thought they'd make money off of it, presumably owing to the band's popularity. Sometimes, local bands play opening sets in a few towns on a tour of a major band. It's an indicator that they're up and coming, but it doesn't mean they're there yet. But, is it maybe the word "tour" that's the issue here? Is there something that distinguishes a tour from a set of gigs, or are they the same thing? To me, just because a band drives around and plays shows hundres of miles apart, doesn't make it a "tour". Friday (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
When I think "tour," I think "A predetermined set of gigs/performances over a specific section of time." Thus, if my band, over two weeks, plays every major city from Boston to Phoenix, I've been on a tour. If my band plays three New England towns one weekend, then plays Philly, NY, and NJ the following weekend, and then takes a couple weekends off before playing Cleveland, that's not a "tour." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the difference you're getting at. Any working band has a predetermined set of gigs at specific times. Is it just about how often they play? When I think tour, I think about sponsorship, among other things. A band gets gigs on their own, but a "tour" is organized and run by somebody else. Friday (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just describing it wrong, then. I don't want to pull an "I know it when I see it" in describing, but many "working" bands do a handful of localish dates in between massive, multi-date tours. I don't understand what you mean "sponsorship," and many smaller clubs don't deal with booking agencies, as some noted indie bands don't deel with booking agencies, even ones on significant labels. It's not about how "often" they play, but the design of the schedule - going on a set schedule from place to place, booked ahead of time to fit into a schedule. Like, take a look at The Reputation - linked there is their prior tour dates over the last 4 years. If you scroll through their dates, you'll see a difference between their non "tour" appearances - gigs in Chicago, Champaign-Urbana, etc - and their tours, where they start in Chicago, head out to Boston, head south to Atlanta, head west, northwest, Canada, back home. I don't know how to describe that more clearly, I always figured a "tour" v. "scheduled gigs" was self-evident. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edcon] The apparent reason is that the less notable a band is, the less likely it is that the article is written according to policy, and the less likely it is that it is detected. It's WP's long tail problem. I'm also not "harping on it", I thought the line was funny and I don't mind keeping the tone of the discussion light. But I'll scrap it if you're not in a humorous mood. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
So because new editors may not be familiar with our standards, we need to tighten them to make it less likely that they'll stick around? It's why I wish we could force people to research before AfD, but that's a different discussion - that's an education issue, not one I think can ever be solved here. And if you were being funny, I apologise for the comment, I get what you're getting at, it's been a rough day, heh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
As for Afd behavior, I can only speak for myself, but I'd tend to say "delete" on a well-written, sourced article, if it was about a local band. Local papers write about local bands all the time, but we don't generally include purely local-interest things, even when verifiable. Friday (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rant vs. Assert

not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a band's importance

Since User:TUF-KAT thinks it's a major change and needs consensus, I prefer the wording of assert over rant about, since the latter has a strong uncivil flavor to it. Even and especially guidelines have to assume good faith. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, weren't we working on consensus, here on the talk page? I don't see a reason for the revert, and I don't see anyone saying those edits are a bad idea. I prefer the rantless version also. I don't want to just stick stuff back, tho, if there's disagreement. Does anyone have a reason they don't like the changes? Specifically, I mean the changes seen here - a couple different edits in a couple places, but they seem like improvements to me. Friday (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Removing "rant" is a minor change, which I agree with. However, you removed "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" which is a *hugely* signficant piece of text, that has been in place from the beginning, and should not be changed. There are a number of AFDers who have tried to argue that failure to meet criteria like "2 albums" requires deletion, even when they meet another item. Meeting one item in the list, is generally adequate, and that should continue to be accepted. Consensus of the original guideline, and all changes, was done with this basic premise. As each item was added, it was understood, just meeting that one item, could allow an article to be kept (provided it meets all policy, like WP:V, of course). --Rob 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple of those were me in an unrelated edit - sorry for the non-clarity. I've put "assert" back in, instead of rant for now, and I've started a new section below specifically about the other edit. Friday (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Apologies -- I thought I was reverting to the version without the "rant". I agree that that change is minor and beneficial. Tuf-Kat 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"is notable if"

I made a change from "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" to "may be considered notable based on the following criteria". I think it's a good change because we absolutely don't want to give the impression that these are hard and fast rules. I want people to understand that if there's disagreement and an article ends up at Afd, each case is different and editors will apply their own judgment. The change was reverted, but I think it should go back in. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I see from the above that the original idea is that meeting any single one is meant to be enough on its own. Which would make my suggested change a different meaning. However I don't see that this is how guidelines really work- people don't stick to the letter of the guideline in Afd discussion or closure. Friday (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Certainly we frequently keep articles for meeting just one item, and this should be retained. I can't recall the last time a band with two albums on a major label was deleted? Generally, if bands clearly meet one item, they are kept, even if it's not verified they meet others. If they barely meet one, and fail all else, they might be deleted. Also, keep in mind, we've always had the wording "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ". So, it was already sufficiently clear, individual editors have discretion. --Rob 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right, that part makes it clear, but it's a bit contradictory with the part I wanted to change, isn't it? A band that really meets one of these will also tend to be verifiable by multiple independant, significant sources. IMO, that is why they do (and should) get kept at Afd. Friday (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
But, the thing is they may be covered non-trivially in multiple sources, but that hasn't yet been added to the article. If somebody makes an article on a band with two major albums on a major label, its silly to delete it, because nobody has yet bothered to add all the independent media attention. If somebody's won a Grammy (or equal award), there's obviously ample press coverage, but maybe nobody wishes to add that right now. So, we should simply demand a reliable source prove the single notability claim, but not necessarily discuss it in great depth. Stubs aren't supposed to be full articles, but merely the seed of a future complete article. --Rob 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes sending a poor article on a perfectly viable subject to AfD is beneficial because it gives them their 15 minutes in the spotlight. I have much more problems with unencyclopedic articles than unencyclopedic subjects. The more notable a subject is the more poorly it reflects on WP if it's shoddily written. ~ trialsanderrors 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with you. If a subject which is notable enough, is poorly written, it is better to delete it from Wikipedia for the time being. Of course, if an article is written in an outstanding manner and style, even if it is not that notable, the article in question deserves to be kept in Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"National or international "vs "significant" tours

Per above discussion (Headliners_vs._support_acts) it doesn't sound like there's general agreement about constitutes a national tour. So far, a suggestion was made to say "significant tour" instead- knowing that this is vague and open to interpretation. So far I've seen a couple people in favor and nobody's given a reason against it that I've seen, but the change was reverted. Anyone have opinions on this? (Sorry for the multiple new sections but there's a couple seperate issues being discussed at once.) Friday (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem on multiple sections. I still see two issues - 1) we shouldn't be "discriminating" (I put it in quotes because it's not the proper word, but I dunno what is) against support acts, and 2) I'm not sure what needs to be clearer about a tour. I'm not sure why a tour isn't evidently different from a series of mishmashed one-offs. I want to get that dealt with, but I don't know where the confusion is to do it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
My proposed change does not mention the issue of headliners vs openers. Neither, I think, does anything in the current version. Also, I'm not doing anything new to try to define "tour"- that term is already vague, or clear, depending on who reads it. So, while I don't disagree with what you're saying, I don't see that this proposed change is relevant to those issues. Friday (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd much rather see it changed to significant tour if we're going to make a change at all concerning what was discussed above. Honestly, I'd like to see it changed to "National tour in a small or medium sized country, or a regional tour in a large country." --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's wrong to smudge the line in the sand because people disagree on where it should be. Our goal in setting guidelines should be to find outside anchors, things that are not fuzzy by definition and that are easy to verify. I still prefer my idea about booking agents because it meets both, but I definitely prefer Jeff's NS/RB over "significant", which boils down to editor's opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, significant was a response to the original change. As the original change is no longer in play at the moment, I don't know if it's really in play at the moment. I would like to keep it as objective as possible, too, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you are talking about headlining as the original change, that's clearly more objective and measureable than significant. Also, arguably than geographical definitions. What is a regional tour in a big country? ~ trialsanderrors 07:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about "major," which I feel is a poor word for this guideline. What's a regional tour in a big country? Perhaps an east coast tour in the United States, to give an idea? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
(replying to trialsanderrors) Yes, "significant" boils down to editors' opinions. But so does "national tour"- this is an issue we already have. I suspect that when the original "national tour" language was added, what was actually intended was "major tour" but it just ended up worded differently. I contend that such fuzziness is desirable in a guideline, not undesirable. In actual practice, if things go to Afd, it does come down to individual editors' opinions- why should we try to pretend this isn't the case? Friday (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Editors opinions are shaped by knowing what consensus is, and "significant" means practically nothing. "National" is at least a specific guideline. Phr (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(Indents getting excessive): Alright, everyone keeps saying that "national tour" is more clear and meaningful than "significant tour". Maybe it's just me, but I'm still not seeing that "national tour" is any less vague. If 3 guys drive their car across a country, playing various shows, is this a national tour, or just 3 guys in a car? Or do we need more information in order to know? I think we can all agree that a band that plays only in one town is not touring, but what makes it a tour? Is it just about how far you're traveling? Concert says "A concert tour is a series of concerts by a musician, musical group, or some number of either in different cities or locations." I agree with that basic definition, but surely we don't mean to imply that 3 guys in a car driving around and playing in bars across a wide geographic area automatically establishes significance? Friday (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(edcon) In terms of "specificness", I would rank them booking agent > headlining > national/regional > significant. Of course we could put a footnote in saying that "significant" can be either booking agent, national or regional/headlining. ~ trialsanderrors 18:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could say something about the venues, but if the 3 guys drive across country, at least they've driven across country and not just to the next town, better than nothing. Should there be press coverage as the result of a significant tour? Like, a tour is significant if there's verifiable media coverage of it from at least 3 geographically separated places? Phr (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Still too restrictive. Press coverage of a tour is not a worthy indicator, we can certainly see where bands played through sources independent of the band. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Press coverage is the yardstick of Wikipedia inclusion. If you're a recent event and there is no press coverage it fails WP:V. We can't poll the 40 or 250 people who went to the show how it was. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Slight correction - independent verification from reliable sources is a yardstick, not necessarily what a newspaper or magazine has to say about it. In fact, as the touring requirement is currently written, it is somewhat at odds w/WP:V, but that's for later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Why *don't* we imply that? As long as they've booked a tour ahead of time, what's the big deal? It shows they're playing out, building an audience, and doesn't really qualify for "bandity." What's the intent of this guideline if we're going to start discriminating against touring bands? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe this doesn't address the "why", but what you're calling a "touring band" is what I call a "bar band". My town alone has hundreds of them. If we change the guideline to say that playing shows establishes notability (or, start interpreting the current guideline to mean that), this is a radical departure from what we've done before. Most editors agree that merely establishing the existance of a thing is not enough to warrant an article. Also, as stated above, press coverage of a tour is absolutely an important factor- without it, we have no verifiability. This standard applies to everything, not just bands. Friday (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, I'd proposed asking for more press coverage than is needed purely to establish verifiably that the tour happened. For example, the band's hometown paper printing multiple stories about the tour wouldn't qualify, and a single press article describing the multi-performance tour wouldn't qualify. Notability happens (per my proposal above) if there are three separate articles from separate regions, all about shows on the same tour. Maybe that's excessive.
I like your comparison of Einstein vs. anyone with a job. Right now there's an AfD up of a completely unnotable local part-time band that got deprodded because it technically met the guidelines, due to several writeups in the hometown papers (no tours, no recordings, etc). It's an egregious enough spam article that it will probably get deleted anyway, but there's no way the guidelines should confer notability on a band like that. Absent other stuff like notable recordings, out-of-town press coverage should be a requirement. (And the guidelines really do mean something: except for some special cases, I generally refrain from voting for deletion of band articles that meet the guidelines, even if I feel they're skating by and shouldn't really be included). Phr (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It is excessive, if only because it requires more than that's necessary for basic verifiability under policy. I have no qualms with requiring "multiple media mentions" as a notability issue, but I'm definitely not comfortable with raising the bar for verifiability of something occurring. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, we're held by WP policy to "discriminate against" some bands as WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What we're doing is find good criteria that are reasonably unambiguous and in accordance with policy. All criteria we establish will create false positives and false negatives, but clearly we can't create one that has only false positives. ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. We're on the same page as the intent, I know that it's impossible to convince anyone that every band out there should be represented, that's why I don't bother. Nothing here is advancing a desire for "false positives" only, but a logical guideline bullet point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Your town has a number of bands that schedule shows across the country, hop in a van, and perform across the country? The guideline already says that playing shows establishes nobility, really. We're just trying to make it more specific. I've addressed the other part above in an edit conflict. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The guideline most certainly does not say that playing shows establishes notability- you're just interpreting it far more broadly than anyone else. It says that a national tour establishes notability. Now we're just trying to hash out what that means. Any high school kid can rent the American Legion hall and play a show there, but this is the musical equivalent of someone writing a letter to the editor - it does not make one a significant journalist. We understand that you're of the opinion that the bar for inclusion should be set very low- that's fine, but it doesn't help us interpret and/or modify the guidelines for inclusion. Friday (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The guideline currently says "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1] reported in notable and verifiable sources." I don't think I'm interpreting it "far more broadly" than anyone else, I'm merely interpreting it as it's written. I personally think that it's too high a bar, but to hash out what a "tour" actually entails has nothing to do with what my bar of inclusion is - my personal desires for this requirement still involve the word "tour." I'm not sure how I'm not helping, honestly - I'm simply starting to become puzzled as to what the issue is at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, considering the nature of a particular booking (or in the case of a tour, a set of bookings), is important. For instance:
  • Is the performance the primary reason for the audience's attendance, or are they there for a different reason? A performance in a concert hall is more noteworthy than one at a state fair or in a bar, both of which are more noteworthy than a gig at a wedding or company picnic. Some people go to clubs or fairs to hear the band, others go to such places to socialize or ride the carnival rides. I don't think anybody would attend a wedding to hear the wedding singers.  :)
  • Who else is in the bill?
  • How is the band compensated for their appearance? Note that some bands may perform gratis, including notable ones who could easily charge admission; but the assumption is that most working musicians are intending to get paid and/or get "discovered".
  • How big is the audience? What is the capacity of the house?
  • Are dates scheduled in advance? What sort of publicity? (Keep in mind that even tours of established acts are often not planned entirely in advance, with dates added or dropped as circumstances change; but some advance planning indicates the band isn't only getting gigs in places when and where the owner/booking agent couldn't find anyone else to play that night, and it's either the band or an empty house.
  • How selective are the venue(s) when it comes to booking talent? Some venues will only book notable or up-and-coming acts; others will book anyone who pays the booking fee.
  • In the case of a tour, the length and geographic scope of a tour. Successful gigs in more than one city or region indicates appeal beyond one's immediate community.
I would expect that if a "tour" is used to establish notability, the nature of the tour should be described (on the talk page; such details are seldom appropriate for the article itself). A link to a tour itenary elsewhere is acceptable.
--EngineerScotty 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
One more note, though this is relevant to performances by local bands in their area, rather than touring bands. An important criteria for judging a local band is: Do they get repeat gigs (at the same venue)? Quite a many band will get booked into a place, stink up the joint, and not be allowed back. (Of course, consider the story of how the band Jethro Tull got named after the inventor of the seed drill; it isn't because Ian Anderson and company were particularly fond of agriculture...) --EngineerScotty 21:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that these factors are important- the answers to those questions helps us distinguish a major tour from just a bunch of gigs. Do we want to try to work these criteria into the guideline to help better define what kinds of tours we're talking about? As for the bar bands, I have to strongly disagree that being able to get regular work indicates significance- the typical working bar band plays many shows at the same venues, but they're still just a bar band. Friday (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this still in dispute?

I ask because of the tag that just got added. It seems like, to me, that there's no real consensus to make any change, and no one's talked about it in almost two months. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is still in dispute. Just because people were getting tired of having the discussion does not mean their opinions changed. Andrew Levine 01:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes a "major award"

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Boyd (musician) there's currently a discussion as to whether or not the Native American Music Awards qualify as a "major award", and so whether winning one of the awards is enough to justify inclusion under the guidelines on this page. I'm somewhat undecided myself (though leaning towards the belief that the Nammys are insufficiently high profile or comprehensive to qualify as major) so I figured it might be useful to get some feedback here, and maybe see if there's any criteria that could be developed to help settle similar debates in the future. --Daduzi talk 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that policy should change to "Has won a notable music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award.", rather than attempt to define "major". If an award is considered notable enough for Wikipedia, its winners by extension should also be considered notable, whether or not the award is "major". We could arguably consider the award's nominees/finalists notable, too. Dl2000 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with this change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would be ideal; an award show could be notable for reasons other than the merit of its awards (novelty value or a scandal, say). There's also the problems that the mere existence of a Wikipedia page doesn't necessarily mean an award is sufficiently notable for inclusion (some may not be but haven't yet been challenged on AfD), and that there's not yet any real guidelines as to what makes an award sufficiently notable, or even any proposed guidelines (as far as I'm aware). In other words, instead of having to define "major" in relation to awards we'd have to define "notable", which could be just as difficult. --Daduzi talk 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What about American Idol, the Euro-band one, or even MTV Fight Klub? -- Mikeblas 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
On a purely personal, subjective and easily dismissed basis I'd say American Idol would probably count as a major award on the basis of media coverage (though it could perhaps be better classed as a competition rather than an award, and this is to no way endorse the quality of the "music" produced) and if by the Euro-band one you mean the Eurovision Song Contest then, yes, that would definitely be major (huge TV coverage across, though again it's debatable whether it's an award). I have no idea what MTV Fight Klub is (or rather I had no idea until I read the article, now I have very little idea) so I can't really comment. Thinking about it I guess the criteria I'm basically using to make my own personal choice is to what extent the award ceremony and, perhaps more importantly, the winner gains major media coverage (by which I mean a prominent item on national television news or large (1/2 a page bare minimum) feature article in a major newspaper). Again, it's just my own criteria so I don't know how persuasive others would find it, and perhaps some form of allowance would have to be made for awards that have long standing and high prestige within a certain musical genre but don't garner mass media attention (the Gramophone Awards for instance). --Daduzi talk 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding section for albums

Currently, the unwritten standard is that if a musician or band is notable, they typically get articles. With very few exceptions, discussions at AfD have reflected this as well. Thus, to bring this in line with how we've been operating, I propose adding a line to this as follows:

  • Albums of bands are generally considered notable if the artists who produce them meet the above guideline.

Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno if this guideline should address this, but I frequently see album articles being created that aren't much use- they're just a track listing and maybe a cover picture. I don't tend to do anything about these, but my opinion is that if that's all we have, it should be merged into the main article, or possibly a discography article if it becomes too long. Some albums unquestionably need their own articles - Kind of Blue for example. I guess all I'm saying is that my preference is for actual encyclopedia articles, not just lists, and I assume pretty much everyone shares the same preference. I would apply a similiar standard to singles- merge them elsewhere unless there's enough to be said about them to make an actual article. Friday (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, in my mind, they're no different than any other stubs, and the albums wikiproject has done a great job in terms of getting chronology out there and providing minimal starting points. My intent is simply to have the guideline reflect what overall consensus has been noting already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd be careful going down that line, just because something is how things are typically done doesn't necessarily mean it reflects consensus in the strictest sense of the word (it may just be a few individuals doing it and nobody challenging it). I also think it's generally a bad idea to have notability of one thing depend on the notabality of something else (an album may be notable for reasons other than who made it, equally a band may be notable for reasons other than their recordings).--Daduzi talk 07:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
i don't know how I missed this reply. See, I think it does reflect general consensus - it's rare that an album by a notable band is not kept at AfD, and there's an extremely successful Wikiproject that works at albums. Are authors notable, but not their books? Are directors notable, but not their movies? Are playwrights notable, but not their plays? It seems like a no-brainer on this end, am I missing something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding consensus, I'm always a bit wary of declaring consensus on the basis of practice because I've seen cases of things getting promoted to guideline status simply because nobody's really paid attention to them. I tend to favour overt consensus (ie through RfC or straw polls) over implicit consensus, but I can see the argument that that can be too bureaucratic so I'm not going to push it. On the subject of notablitiy, however, I do think that though in the majority of cases it is true that if a band is notable their albums are, I can see that there could be potential exceptions. A band may have made the news for reasons entirely unrelated to their music and their albums may have been completely ignored by the press. Look at the criteria listed here, there's 12 of them but only one relates to albums (with another one relating to singles). Though unlikely, it's still entirely possible that a notable band could release non-notable albums (equally a notable album could be released by a non-notable band or even anonymously, though that's even less likely), so it would probably be better to set separate criteria for albums (a mimimum chart position or a certain number of reviews in the major music/mainstream press, say). --Daduzi talk 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
well, instead of running in circles over it with you, I suppose, I'm not quite seeing how a band can be notable, yet its work not be. Whether something gets press attention isn't the be-all end-all of nobility, I suppose, but I think we'd be hard pressed to find a "notable" band that didn't have some attention sent to its album. I dunno, I didn't expect to see any opposition to this to begin with, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm thinking more of the bands at the borderline of notability than the White Stripes or Libertines of this world. I could easily forsee a situation where a band scrapes through on one of the criteria on here, then fans start adding their albums as soon as they appear even though they've gained zero press or any notice at all beyond a small circle. I guess I'm just a tad cynical in that I assume any possible loophole will be exploited at some point in AfD, even if no particular instances spring to mind. --Daduzi talk 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to add, as an example of a (relatively well known) band who are notable but whose albums aren't necessarily so what about The Brian Jonestown Massacre? --Daduzi talk 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
So why aren't their albums "notable?" I have a feeling as to why you brought them into it as an example, but I'm curious as to your rationale in this case, as it's a decent example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the case of BJM while their (or more specifically Anton Newcombe's) musical ability is a part of their notability, their relationship with The Dandy Warhols, their influence on later bands, Dig! and their ability to self-destruct are as important, if not more important. Add to this the fact that a lot of their albums were self-released,, distributed to a very small number of people, and generated pretty much no press and I guess that's why I'd argue that though the band's notable not every one of their albums is. The lack of press creates another problem, unrelated to notability, in that it makes it very hard to actually write much about the albums without lapsing into original research. --Daduzi talk 12:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not everything that a great person creates is great. There are a very few artists that deserve an article on everything they did. While all John Lennon albums have articles, for example, there are DOZENS of John Lennon songs that don't have their own articles. I mean, how much could you really say about Oh, Yoko!? The article would pretty much say, "John Lennon really, really loved his wife." Now what if we're talking not about Lennon but about The Clarks, who I happen to think are one of the best bands ever, but which produced some very forgettable albums? In that case, I think that any info about the albums could just go onto the Clarks page itself, with little fear that it's going to top 32k. And if it did, well, we could create a page like the John Lennon discography page, where we just list all the Clarks albums and then have details about how they sold, what they meant to the development of the band's music, etc. --M@rēino 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that all albums (not all songs, but definitely all albums) by notable groups are notable pretty much by definition. As per User:Daduzi, how much can be written about them whilst still being verifyable is probably the limiting factor here. -Ladybirdintheuk 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. Whilst I think undoubtedly all released regular albums my notable artists are automatically notable, what about very minor or unofficial releases such promos, demo tapes, studio sessions, bootleg albums, EPs, unreleased albums etc? I cannot believe that every compilation created by every notable artist is also automatically notable itself if it had a very limited audience or was not publically released etc. DWaterson 11:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"King of the Road"?

Is there an article about the country song "King of the Road"? I think Randy Travis recorded it, and Boxcar Willie, too. Who wrote it? Who originally recorded it? -- Mikeblas 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Try Roger Miller.Edison 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Albums

I'm probably missing something extremely obvious, but I can't seem to find a page on notability guidelines for albums. I found the page for song notability, but is there one for albums? If not what is the standard? --WillMak050389 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The current unwritten standard is that if a band is notable, the albums are generally allowable. People are less inclusionary regarding the songs on an album, however. This isn't a hard and fast guideline, and people are puzzlingly reluctant to codify it, but that's generally how it works. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
So your saying any band that has an article can also have their albums also? I ask only because I have created articles for East West and did not want their albums to be put up for deletion for notability. Thanks for the reply. --WillMak050389 03:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a guideline somewhere that covers album notability, so I'm going to add the following to this page for now:
Albums. Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums, is that if the band that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.
How's that sound? --Elonka 16:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I'm not opposed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What about compilation albums, like Now That's What I Call Music! 1980's Edition (USA). Sure, the artists are famous, but is there anything notable at all about this album? Rawr 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't most articles on albums violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? If the article contains only a track listing and a list of musicians, and an infobox, it doesn't really meet Wikipedia's criteria.--Srleffler 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Srleffler. Album notability should be considered independently of the producing band-if the album itself isn't notable in its own right, it would be better covered on the band's page than in a separate article. There are many bands who pass the (too loose, in my not-generally-humble opinion) band criteria, but for whom every album, demo tape, etc., is most certainly not notable in its own right.
I would suggest separate criteria, such as if the album is a work of an extremely notable band (The Eagles, Pink Floyd, Nirvana), has received significant press coverage outside "niche" sites as a seminal work within a genre, or has received a large and significant amount of press coverage outside "niche" sites for other reasons, that it should be included. Seraphimblade 13:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've written WP:LP, a proposed album notability guideline that could be of interest. Addhoc 13:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've tagged the album section as there appears to be a lack of consensus. Addhoc 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical Notability

Added a historical notability criterion --Shirahadasha 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted due to a lack of prior consensus. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but saying a musician is notable if he has "historical importance" doesn't really define notability in a useful way. "noted by musical historians in reputable publications" doesn't help much since it adds another semi-synonym for notable ("reputable"). Furthermore, it doesn't really seem necessary. Anything of historical importance is notable - this guideline is meant for articles where it's not clear if that is the case. Tuf-Kat 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this change hurt anything- it only reflects what's already being done. I'm not sure it's helpful to automatically revert a reasonable change simply because it wasn't discussed ahead of time. Friday (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a widely used guideline that potentially impacts thousands of articles. That makes it inappropriate to make substantial changes without prior discussion. This is not a reasonable change (which would be a minor rewording, for example), but rather a large change in the guideline's meaning by adding a whole new criterion for notability. Tuf-Kat 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess I don't see it as actually adding a new criterion, just as writing down what's already being done. As you said yourself, pretty much anything of historical significance (supported by proper sources of course) would already be kept at Afd. I don't see the harm in having such written into the guideline- the worst you can say about it is that it's unneccessary, but so are some of the other ones. Friday (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a difference between a musical criterion for notability and a historical one which may be applied to musical topics. The problem, at least with the current wording, is that is too vague and will only lead to disputes about what qualifies. It essentially boils down to saying a musician is notable if he's historically notable, which is self-evident, only tangentially relevant here and of little interest to AfD, where few historical performers are ever nominated (I think there are few AfD noms for before the 1990s, much less even farther back). Tuf-Kat 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then simply label them standards for modern music. Out of the difficulty at once. Because, as they stand, they are COMPLETELY UNAPPLICABLE TO ANY PIECE OF CLASSICAL MUSIC THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO APPLY THEM TO. Adam Cuerden talk 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional Resources

Not sure if this is the correct page to propose this. I noticed that on a lot of pages for various artists that IMDB and MusicBrainz are used as External Links (along with discogs and allmusic.) Since Rollingstone is an acceptable source for albums, it seems to make sense that it should be a source for artist information. (After all, IMDB for makes a lot of sense for movies/ actors, etc, not sure how authorative it is for music, IMHO.) I know that Rollingstone is not always neutral, but they do have some interesting bios written (that are factual and neutral) along with listings for albums, etc. Just a thought. example: AC/DC Thanks 66.235.58.156 06:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone define 'Chart' please?

Does this include genre based charts? I am interesting in supporting a page for a band that appeared in various 'Indie' (Independent Music) charts in UK music press papers in the late 70's and early 80's. On the one hand, these charts were compiled from the notoriously unreliable sales figures from independent record shops. On the other hand, these charts were published in UK-wide publications such as the New Musical Express, Sounds, and The Melody Maker. What are your views on how 'valid' these charts are? I only ask this because the definition of notability includes the phrase 'Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country' Does a chart which was printed by a country-wide publication, but was not a general (perhaps you prefer 'Top 40' as a more acceptable term?) chart count as valid?

Personally, for examples such as this, I would count NME charts as being valid - it really is a very narrow set of genres that get into the mainstream charts! Depending on who you're refering to, I would imagine that they do fulfil a few other criteria - they've probably been on a few UK tours, and come under "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." (and possibly "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such."). -Ladybirdintheuk 08:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Jazz Artists & Idiotic Challenges To Their "Notability"

I recently found a request for a bio of the jazz drummer Ari Hoenig in a musicians list shortly after joining the "Jazz Wiki Project", and added a short bio with a link to Ari's main Web site. I should note at the outset that Hoenig already has an article on the Italian Wiki site, has travelled extensively worldwide, has been featured in numerous magazines, newpspapers and Web sites, and certainly more than qualifies for an entry here. The link added intially to the page created to the artist's main site contained a huge amount of information and multimedia not possible to be displayed on Wikipedia, not withstanding the copyright and duplication concerns, and there isn't a need to reinvent the wheel in cases like these.

Almost immediately, a person challenged the entry with a request that the Hoenig somehow wasn't "notable" enough to qualify for a page, despite the fact said person later admitted they knew almost nothing about jazz short of a visit to see Harry Connick, Jr. in their native Australia. This person's profile notes they take pride in "raging against garage bands that don't belong here", etc. This same person has so far refused to withdraw their request for a CSD A7, leaving the page in limbo, and forcing me to spend hours adding further documentation to a page that didn't actually need it.

There are three problems here...one being guidelines that can be abused when someone's far too full of themselves in subject matter they know nothing about, adminstrators who don't follow their own guidelines and jump too fast to mark a page as CSD A7, and a potential lack of respect for non-commercial artists who may be more popular in Europe or Japan than elsewhere, but still fully deserving recognition in Wikipedia.

I would note for the record I write for a NY Times-owned newspaper and try extremely hard to research any subject I publish anywhere, regardless of the forum.

Tvccs 11:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's important to understand that (in theory) articles are only actually speedy deleted for lack of "notability" if they utterly do not assert notability, or if the claims are obviously false. Even the very first instance of the article in question should not have been deleted. And it wasn't deleted, it looks like the whole problem here is that one person made a not so great decision and tagged it for deletion, but that went nowhere, process worked this time. This kind of stuff just happens occasionally just due to the nature of Wikipedia. I really doubt anyone would seriously want the current version of this article deleted. Think we can file this under "no harm, no foul"? --W.marsh 02:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Right on. Everything worked as intended, in this case. Mistakes do happen, tho- but for every near miss like this, I bet there's a dozen garage band articles deleted without a sound. Friday (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There is no perfect system, but this time it worked as it should have. The right decision was made fairly quickly, and there's now a nice article. Tuf-Kat 07:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect...there was no need for me to jump on this page and spend hours immediately upgrading it to keep it from potentially being deleted. Since a user must get an admin to agree with a CSD A7 request, it's the admin's responsibility to not jump too fast, and it's also the admin's responsibility to notify the original CSD requester that they are in error. Not doing so wastes a hell of lot of time waiting for a decision that should never have been raised in the first place, especially when the user in question takes seeming delight from making users "prove" a notability standard in areas in which they admit to having essentially NO knowledge - that's the real pisser here. I can't imagine challenging information on a subject I had no knowledge of - the idea is absurd on its face, and no one else should be subjected to meaningless garbage just because someone fancies themselves as the "garage band rager to the point of creating custom art to support it. Especially when simply clicking the immediately provided link on the original site would have immediately answered any possible concers of "notability". As I told the user in question with my first reply - "Get a life."
Tvccs 11:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?

Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability (comics)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comics), an effort to help editors determine notability in comedy- and humor-related articles, and I adapted it from this guideline. Please take a look at it. Because there is enough overlap, it has been suggested that the comedian and musician aspects of these guidelines be merged into a notability guideline concerning performers or entertainers in general. Please also consider this. Thank you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What the?

This makes me sad. I added Trio Mocoto twice yesterday. Only to see it removed, without any justification whatsoever. I thought there must be a problem. Today I added it again, with a note on the Talk page. Only to see it removed again. If Trio Mocoto is not notable according to these guidelines, these guidelines need to be changed.

Also, it would be quite polite to actually notify people of the deletion of an article they started. And not only some WP:BAND BS after people create the article 3 times with a note on the Talk page.

Not happy, not amused Guaka 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, this won't really go away. The article just didn't have enough content in it yet. Friday (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
PS. the problem isn't that they're not notable accordin to the guidelines- the problem was that nothing in the article explained how they might be significant. Friday (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem?

These guidelines are written primarily for Pop music. It is almost impossible to apply them to,say, a minor opera of Rossini, since their guide to what music is relevant presumes modern day. Adam Cuerden talk

Have added a brief note about standard reference texts that should get anything like that in. Adam Cuerden talk 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability:Others

I'm confused about this criterion:"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre." This seems to apply to essentially any band that has created new music (i.e., isn't just a cover band). Can someone explain this criterion, and how it ensures notability of a band? Perhaps I'm not clear on what it means for "melodies, tunes or standards" to be "used in a notable genre". Thanks. Doctormatt 23:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it's intended to refer to composers whose name may be extremely obscure, but who wrote a number of important works. For instance, Johann Christoph Pepusch is a dreadfully obscure name, but The Beggar's Opera is quite well-known. Adam Cuerden talk 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)."

This criterion has been introduced since the last time I looked at this. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that leads me to believe that school newspapers (at least college) are not reliable sources, and I've used articles from college newspapers in the past to cite sources without objection. I would either adjust the above criterion to include at least college newspapers or I would remove it entirely. Grandmasterka 08:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A school and a university aare different things. You're reading more into it than it says. Adam Cuerden talk 12:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I think it should be clarified better. (A university is a kind of school.) Comments? Grandmasterka 04:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Should be easily enough done. how about just adding "(though university newspapers are usually fine)" after it? Adam Cuerden talk 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked it a smidgen. College is ambiguous between countries, University isn't. Also, given the recent scandal with the University of Manchester newspaper being taken over for POV-pushing purposes, I added a get-out clause. Adam Cuerden talk 22:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

While it seems that there is consensus on this page to accept university newpapers as reliable sources editors in AfD still often find them unreliable or their write-ups to be trivial. Has this issue been discussed anywhere else? -MrFizyx 08:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Should we add a length requirement? Half a page, perhaps, to combat triviality? That doesn't really solve the reliability problem though... Require that the school newspaper have an article? An award? That would make it way too complicated though. Grandmasterka 07:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is more a matter for WT:RS. Grandmasterka 07:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I felt that in the debate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad (fourth nomination) that editors were deeming the sources that as trivial either because of length, or the nature of the publication, or the limited geographic coverage of the publications. The article was fairly well sourced and I count at least four media mentions that as least appear to meet the criteria.[1][2][3][4] All of these papers were either college papers or free-local weekly papers. None were dailys and all are distributed only in Phoenix, Arizona area. Some of the papers do have articles on the 'pedia (Phoenix New Times and the Arizona Republic). It is clear that the community felt (strongly) that this failed to meet the requirement for press coverage. While I think it is reasonable for others to feel this way, I don't think this obvious from the criteria here which is no doubt frustrating to editors who feel they are meeting the criteria. -MrFizyx 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Using college newspapers to determine notability? Abosolutely not! College papers often write articles about musical groups which are clubs at their school or whose members are students. They do this because such articles are of interest to the student body. That does not mean that these groups are notable outside of their university. School papers had been explicitly excluded from this criteria for a long time. I find it slightly dubious that such a policy 180 was done with such little discussion here. Imagine if an article in a school newspaper was sufficient for WP:BIO. savidan(talk) (e@) 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the first criteria be amended to say: "(an article in a school or university newspaper does not meet the this criteria, but facts from such an article can be used to meet other criteria)." savidan(talk) (e@) 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I hestitate to definitively rule in or out university newspapers. They are prone to excessive enthusiasm (both positive and negative) and "creative" quoting, but they do have oversight from both their advisors (not necessarily media professionals) and the university (a point with its own pros and cons). I suggest we treat them like we would anything coming from college (professors, athletes, etc.) — they should not be considered adequate as exclusive sources either for notability or information, but can be used to support this data as a closer source, as long as the information is not obviously biased or inaccurate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Commenting on this more than a month after this thread has died, I think that articles in college publications ought to count for something, mainly on their own merits. I know of a band that has something like 6 or 7 quality articles in different college papers, but might not end up getting included if we say NO COLLEGE PAPERS EVER. Grandmasterka 12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with reviving old threads if there's something left to be discussed. However, as to the exclusion of such, I can only say an unequivocal Good. If they haven't had coverage in anything but a college paper yet, they're not yet to the point we should cover them. Seraphimblade 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, some (likely trivial) coverage. But you're probably right. Soon, my friend, soon. Grandmasterka 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability of "reality television" contestants?

WP:MUSIC says a musician or ensemble is notable if they have won or placed in a major music competition.

I wondered if perhaps that could be reviewed and possibly removed. TV shows such as the Idol series (American Idol etc) and The X Factor have singers who get to the final 10 contestants and are then voted off early on, and go back to their normal lives, never to be seen or heard again. I don't believe that makes somebody notable. I can't find any examples at the moment but with series currently airing, I'm expecting articles to be created that possibly shouldn't be. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on this one. With those major shows, literally tens of millions of people know their names and become familiar with them. They absolute confer notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
They're not notable as their contribution to society is nil. Winners of the shows, sure. Someone who's embroiled in public controversy (an affair with a judge, an arrest during the show) and not just something between them and another contestant -- that's arguable. If they go on to get a recording contract after losing anyway? That's back to the regular WP:MUSIC criteria for that new recording career. Otherwise, they're out. I'm all for changing the text to "won a major music competition". -- Mikeblas 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Contribution to society" is entirely arbitrary. I'm very much against any change on this. Here's an example: I don't know Idol at all. I've watched two episodes, tops. I'm still quite aware of the 15 year old kid they called "Chicken Little," and that's it. If it can leak down to someone like me who's completely out of touch with most popular culture, you're going to sit there and say he's "not notable" because he didn't make it into the top 6 or whatever? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
A positive contribution to society isn't arbitrary; contributing to an art or a science is one thing that helps establish notability. That you've heard of a contestant or two and think, therefore, that reality show contestants are notable enough to be in an encyclopedia isn't a very powerful argument. We won't allow artists just because you, personally, have heard of them. -- Mikeblas 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Would anybody else like to comment on this? By the way, here is a recent AFD discussion in relation to this topic, and here is another. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that American Idol contestants are not notable unless they win (which generally means an album deal) or subsequently produce notable albums or have a notable showbiz career. IMO, Nor are game show contestants, or reality TV contestants, unless they then go on to a notable career. -- Ssilvers 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. American Idol is far and away the most watched musical competition on television. Do you see how many votes they get from people calling in? The line for such shows should obviously be at finalists. Under your standard, that long haired Constantine fellow wouldn't be noted, nor would the "Chicken Little" kid, and that's really nonsensical. I don't even watch the show, I couldn't tell you who won the last few go 'rounds, and I know these things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The "contribution to society" argument is irrelevant. What is relevant is that for most of these people, the only info we have on them relates to what they did on the show. So, they should be covered in the articles on the show. If someone goes on to have a career and gets covered by the music press outside the context of the show, that's when it makes sense to think about them having their own articles. Otherwise these are just flash-in-the-pan articles relevant only for a week. Do we want to try to maintain biographical articles on living people who were known for a week and then disappeared? No, we do not. The game show analogy is apt- just because these game shows are called "reality" shows and last a bit longer doesn't matter. The host of a gameshow might be notable, but an individual contestant is not. Friday (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is calling it any sort of "game show." It's not comparable to Jeopardy or Supermarket Sweep, or even Star Search. The "only info" is completely false, as these folks get things written about them, and with a little effort, can be fleshed out. There's no need to contain them in one article, that doesn't make sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Game shows are comparable to other game shows, why wouldn't they be? Or, maybe this is unimportant. The two afds mentioned above resulted in merges, which seems the most sensible thing to do when in doubt. Looking at the content of those articles before the merge, I see 2 good illustrations of why merging is the right thing to do- the only relevant info in the articles was about their performance on the show. Is there an example of a reality-show contestant that had a bio article that you think was a keeper? Unless there are counterexamples, real life experience supports the "these should be merged" position. Friday (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
They're not "game shows." To try and say that Idol is the same as Wheel of Fortune is patently absurd. WoF doesn't havea pool of 16 contestents that battle week after week, daily contestents on WoF don't have hundreds of websites made about them, do not generate any fans, are not watched weekly by tens of thousands of people, and generally do not enter the general social consciousness. The two AfDs ended up in a poor result, and I was disappointed to see such inconsistency, although I'm getting used to it. Take a look at any reality show contestent. Hell, take a look at a few of the Project Runway ones currently running - the fact that we're likely to delete them is patently absurd. Stubs aren't bad things, and we need to realize that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

size of country

Do we really need "large or medium sized" specified for countries? I'd think any charting artist would be notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We should get rid of the vague medium/large country qualifier with respect to the charts and gold/platinum certification. Even if a "small" nation had charts and gold record awards, those would represent notability in the national culture (and most "small" countries likely wouldn't have enough of a music industry to have charts and certifications anyway). But the criteria of touring gets messy - for example, would a "national tour" in Vatican City be enough for notability? Dl2000 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd think we can trust editors judgement enough to deal with cases like that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable or not?

Hey, I'm not trying to shake things up here, but these guidelines for determining the "notablility" of a band or group are excessive. I know that it is important to keep the wiki free of "filler" information, but why is it that a local band -one that may be important to 50+ people in a given town- can't have a wikipedia page? As long as the article is well composed, contains useful information, and isn't just a plug or advertisment for themselves, there should be no problem in allowing such group to remain on the wikipedia. In case example (and why I started researching these guidelines), note The Game Genies article. Granted, this is a favorite band of mine, but that aside there is no legitimate reason that such an article can't be allowed. The "notability" of the band depends on where you are (or what you listen to). Music articles should be deleted based on article construction, information, and compliance with non-advertisment rules, not based on what people who have never experienced the music and the band think about a band's notablity. Afacini 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because something is not notable when only 50 people care about it. I mean, half the people I know are important to at least 50 people, and none of them are even CLOSE to deserving a Wikipedia entry. -Amarkov babble 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's extend this a bit more so that Afacini can understand it. There are certain things that Wikipedia is not supposed to be, for the sake of maintenance. Notability means two things: that it can be verified and that a signifigant cross-section of people are interested in it. Who gains from an encyclopedia article on a band that 50 people like? And why stop at 50? 25? 5?

At that point, any band that can get someone to write a "well-written" article can be in Wikipedia. Even if no one listens to them, or care. Wikipedia should be about KNOWLEDGE, not big masses of totally useless information. There are wiki's that are devoted to music and bands, and there are wiki's that are ENCYCLOPEIDAS. The suggestion you make basically means that the only people who can decide if a band is notable -- that is, if anyone ELSE besides the people who like it have heard of it -- ARE the people who like it. If you can't see the sheer insensability of that then I suggest you spend some time really READING up on what notability is. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 14:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, read User:Uncle_G/On_notability--Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I agree with Afacini. Many bands and musicians are important for particular cultures. I've been interested in African music/musicians for a while, but there's not a chance most of them could get articles: They get almost no coverage in the west. And they focus on live performance rather than recording. It's a completely different culture, which can't really have the same rules applied. "Who gains from an encyclopedia article on a band that 50 people like? And why stop at 50? 500? 5000?" - it is pretty subjective, but I don't think that being in the charts, or having a major record label behind them makes them more worthy. Surely to keep this neutral we should ignore how big the record label is? And consider them on a case-by-case basis, looking at their importance in their own context (ie their own culture, country, region, language, etc...). Not meant to be a flame or anything, just what I think :D Lionfish0 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullets --> numbers

I converted the bulleted lists to numbered lists so that individual criteria could be easily referred to by number in, for example, a deletion discussion. Other notability guideline pages such as WP:MUSIC/SONG and WP:CORP have their criteria in numbered lists. TacoDeposit 15:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge of WP:SINGLE and WP:LP

Support after they gain approval Addhoc 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Album criteria

I gather the basis for WP:LP, and the earlier edit to these criteria are largely based on the statement in WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." It seems we are trying to use verifiability criteria here to establish (or refute rather) notability. I have a couple of problems with this. First, it usually isn't hard to verify that an album has been published. The album itself is a published record of the track lists, lyrics, and liner notes--all which provide some material for an article. Second, aren't established record companies reputable, reliable, third-party publishers? Why need we argue point for point whether each recording in a notable artist's discography deserves space here?

I do think a criteria like WP:LP would be very useful for compilation albums/retrospectives offered by record companies. -MrFizyx 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My understanding is that a record company press release is a primary reference, while a review in a magazine would be a secondary reference. Obviously articles have to comply with notability guidelines in addition to WP:V. Addhoc 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fang Aili is not following the rules

"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion."

This user has been using this as sole reason for speedy deletion and should be taken to task. --Scottandrewhutchins 06:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A few things: Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Admins use their discretion in deleting, this is unavoidable. Also, this is not a page for dispute resolution. If you have a problem with another user's edits, try talking to them on their talk page. I speedy delete tons of bands too - with the volume of junk coming in, someone has to. In practice, non-notable bands are slam-dunk cases for deletion at Afd, and many admins go ahead and delete them quickly and quietly without dragging them through a process who's outcome is obvious. See also WP:SNOW. Friday (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Help requested with m-flo

At Wikipedia:Deletion review#DOPAMINE, it's being argued that it's OK to speedy an EP by a band with an article, and it's even being claimed that the articles are "page rank boosting". Is this typical behavior where music is concerned? --NE2 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mere tours and opening acts

It is obviously preposterous to suggest that an opening band is as notable as the band they're touring with. (If they were, they wouldn't be the opening band!) It's also highly dubious, IMO, to accept that simply touring the country, by itself is enough to become notable (I could tour the country with my recorder, playing at parking lots and streetcorners throughout the US, and that wouldn't make me notable.) And now our resident inclusionist-par-extremis, BadlyDrawnJeff is trying to argue that we don't even need any reliable sources for claims of a tour; that we should simply accept an artists own word for it. Wow, now I don't even have to drive around the country; all I have to do is claim that I did on my web page, and I get a free article on Wikipedia to promote my nonexistent musical career! Can you imagine how many of the non-notable artists clamouring to get into Wikipedia would try to take advantage of this loophole if we allowed it? More mainstream spammers have already become experts at Wikilawyering to try to get their spamticles included in Wikipedia. Music promoters may not be quite as evil as everyday spammers, but they're hardly angels, and I have no doubt they will try to take advantage of any such gigantic loopholes in order to try to make a few extra bucks from Wikipedia's high visibilty on search engines.

I strongly suggest that, at least, we add "independent" to the sources requirement for tour reports (this should be fairly non-controversial, except, perhaps, with Jeff), and maybe add a suggestion that if an artist tours as an opening act and has no other claims of notability, that a merge to the article about the main act (or the tour) might be more appropriate (similar to the TV guideline, #10). Xtifr tälk 04:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be assumed that sources used to meet this have to qualify under WP:V... -Amarkov blahedits 05:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be assumed, yes, but if we state it explicitly, then we don't have to assume that people will make sensible assumptions. :) Xtifr tälk 06:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. The statement above about what I'm "trying to claim" has WP:V in mind. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. I think having any tour information confirmed by "multiple, non-trivial and independent reliable sources" would be a great way to head off this issue in the future. A Myspace page or official website should definitely not be considered a reliable source when it's promotional. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Films test case at WP:DRV, as I mentioned repeatedly, is easily verifiable independently by checking out the venue websites. They're on tour no question, and they're even headlining, I think in Dublin. They play a number of well-known venues, although it's not quite clear if they're playing the main hall or a smaller room (which most of the bigger venues now have, see Ancienne Belgique). So independent verifiability is not the issue here, and I actually don't think bands actively lie about their touring. The question is, if you go on tour, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? I checked http://www.spex.de and http://www.lesinrocks.fr for info on the tour and there isn't any. So my criteria would be that someone has to write about you touring. I investigated the touring history of Uncle Tupelo for a frind of mine who runs a fan page, and I have no problems finding writeups about their shows back to 1989, a year before they released an album. ~ trialsanderrors 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'd like to see - an independent writeup about the band that's touring. Club listings are a dime a dozen, and promotional to boot. Calendar listings in newspapers are also problematic, as they're also promotional (having run many of them over the years, I know this). A review of a show, now - that's more along the lines of what I could happily deal with. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Are we looking for verifiability or not? That should be the be-all end-all of this discussion. Anything more is going over the top and asking for sources that may not readily exist, especially today. --badlydrawnjeff
Why rely on just some random dude's blog site as a reliable source? Surely a newspaper or a zine of some sorts that lists tours of bands are notable enough and more dependable. I don't really see a problem with band sites as a source to verify past tours for reasons mentioned above. RiseRobotRise 11:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

talk 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: as someone who works on stub-sorting for the musicians wikiproject and guitarists wikiproject, I have come across several instances where bands or musicians blatantly lie on their wikipedia pages in the hopes of meeting the notability guidelines. It's rare, but it definitely happens. Usually the claims are so grandiose that they're easy to refute, but in this case, it doesn't even have to be an out-and-out lie, merely an exaggeration ("we toured at least six states; if we call that a 'national tour' on our web page, we get free promotion over at Wikipedia"). Xtifr tälk 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
First and foremost, my argument is being entirely twisted by saying we shouldn't require any reliable sources. My argument is simple - if it needs verifiable sources, go with hat's considered verifiable. With that said, this is an insane change to consider, and we should dismiss it outright. We're trying to judge a way to figure notability, and a national tour does that. Even highly notable bands don't always get the headlining shot, and there's no realistic way to judge whether it's a headlining tour for club shows. It introduces too many maybes, and makes this even more exclusionary than it already is. Absolutely not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Asking for valid proof of the importance of a tour through something other than a club listing is insane, then? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Asking for evidence beyond what's required by our verifiability policy is insane, yes. Insane at worst, and exclusionary to a fault at best. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Leaving aside for a moment the rather insulting tone of the opening statement (yes I get as frustrated with Jeff as anyone but he has a right to his opinion, it's a perfectly legitimate Wikiphilosophy), fundamentally the problem here is that the list of criteria does not truly reflect what constitutes notability. It might be more accurate to say that the list of criteria is a list of examples of the kinds of things a notable band will have done but in the end what we need for the band to have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the band itself. No truly notable band can fail to have such coverage. There are many reliable sources. The music press, for example. If the band has been the subject of a profile in Melody Maker, Sounds, Time Out, Kerrang or any one of the numerous other music publications, then it is well on the way to objectively establishing notability. A short para in a gig guide is not "non-trivial", of course. Some absolutely dreadful bands have toured as support and never been heard of again. Some fantastic bands have started out as support to bands who were not fit to tune their instruments. You can't tell a lot from a list of gig dates, can you? But is a music journo has taken the trouble to write a profile, then you know the band is going places. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In which case, should we replace this (and every other notability guideline) with:
This page in a nutshell: There should only be an individual article if there is enough verifiable information to give a reasonable level of coverage.
Addhoc 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I was too harsh on Jeff in the intro, in which case I apologize. I'm not sure what, exactly, was too harsh; the worst thing I called him was "inclusionist-par-extremis", and I figured he'd revel in that label. I would like to note that I explicitly invited him to participate in this discussion even though/because I knew he would object. In any case, my issue is not with Jeff, who is welcome to his philosophy. My issue is the fact that some people (including musicians) lie in order to try to get themselves articles in Wikipedia. I have the power, right now, to post the claim that I have toured internationally as a musician on half a dozen websites. If that's enough to get me into Wikipedia, then something is broken! My complaint is plainly and simply with the notion that lies by a primary party must be accepted, even for something as simple as evidence of notability. But perhaps I would be better discussing this issue on WP:V, from whence Jeff's argument stems, and I thank Jeff for helping to clarify that for me. Xtifr tälk 20:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The first sin was misrepresenting my claim. The second sin was then assuming that my position was "extreme," when all it really includes is a strict interpretation of WP:V combined with a desire to expand the guidelines in some areas. Now, do people lie? Absolutely. Do they lie on their websites to get on Wikipedia? In 99.999% of cases, absolutely not. As someone who's done websites for bands in the past, it is not in their best interests to make things up on their websites for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. If you have an issue with the wording of WP:V, perhaps you should go over there and try to change that instead of making WP:MUSIC even more exclusionary than it already is. I'll oppose you there, too - if primary sourcing is simply abandoned altogether, I may as well quit contributing altogether - but you'll at least be barking up the right tree. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If I have misunderstood your position, I apologise. I don't think I quite understand it yet, but I'll take a closer look. As for "extreme", I meant no value judgement on the rightness or wrongness of your position. I was merely observing the fact that you tend to take a more inclusionist attitude than most people in AfD discussions. But if you object to the term, I withdraw it. But as for your claim that bands don't lie, that flies in the face of both common sense and my own observations. A band is a business, and a frequently marginal business at that. And marginal businesses frequently engage in forms of puffery in their advertisements that border on (and often cross the line into) lying. As I say, I've seen several instances in stub-sorting, and I've personally known several musicians who would not hesitate to lie for some free publicity. Anyway, I don't care how small the percentage is, Wikipedia is not a free advertising service, and I don't want it abused by spammers and liars. That is my whole goal in raising this issue. I don't care about the specifics; If you can find another way to resolve this that doesn't include adding spammers and liars to Wikipedia, I would be very, very, very happy to hear it. Xtifr tälk 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen evidence of bands lying on their webpages/myspace just to get an article on wikipedia. Besides, going on a national or international tour alone won't satisfy the requirement for notability. I'm not really sure if any AFD discussions were closed as a 'keep' solely based on that single requirement, as there are other requirements to fulfill. Many editors who contribute to the afd discussions take into consideration on the bigger picture, and conclude on educated decision wether to keep the article or not RiseRobotRise 11:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Going on a national or international tour is enough to meet this guideline, and I have argued keep in cases where that fact (verified by external sources) was the only criteria a band has met (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single File). True, it wasn't a successful argument, but I think it's a case that could justify a deletion review (note to Jeff: more work than its worth to me, but I'd support you if you wanted to take a stab at it). It's true that deletionists at AfD sometimes blatantly ignore the guidelines and vote delete anyway. And I don't think that's appropriate any more than, I suspect, Jeff does. I'm neither inclusionist nor deletionist; I'm a guideline-follower and concensus-seeker, but I loathe spam. And yes, the danger for music articles may not have arrived quite yet, but from what I've seen, other, more mainstream, blatant spammers are starting to learn the wikipedia rules just enough to try to weasel and wikilawyer support for their spam. Musicians and especially music promoters can be awfully weasely too; I doubt they'll be far behind. Especially since Wikipedia is quickly becoming a major promotional tool, despite constant spam-fighting. With respect to music, I think it's an issue to discuss now, before it becomes a major problem, rather than later, when it's become a crisis. (But that's just my opinion, and I won't insist on it.) Xtifr tälk 11:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the AFD failed for that band, then I don't really see any problems as other editors weighed in on delete. Other editors mentioned that it failed WP:V. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place where a problem must be stopped before it could potentially happen. That policy is made clear with its protection policy. I think, as for now, we should leave the criteria untouched until a problem occurs (which I doubt will). RiseRobotRise 17:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

anti-indie

This guideline pretty much excludes all Indie musicians. There's a clear difference between national though not mainstream artists and local bands. How can we define it though? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girls gone docile (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC).


I don't think the guidelines are anti-indie. The flaw in them is that comparing an indie artist's success to a major label artists success is rarely valid. There are only a handful of indie artists that have had album sales comparable to major label artists and that is often rare.

Indie artists can achieve notability, but the standard from measuring it should not be the same as what is applied to major label artists. There are indicators one can look for that may give signs as to an indie artist's level of professionalism (membership in certain organizations(NARAS,BMI, ASCAP, SOCAN etc.), distribution, RIAA ISRC compliant CDs, longevity/track record of multiple cd releases etc., yet it's not truly a gauge of there notability (impact on culture, music and society). So while it's easy to measure album sales, and the professional growth of a recording artist, the concept of notability (significance to a defined group of people) is more subjective.

I don't really see any harm in having articles on indie artists as long as they have either a consistent track record of publishing recordings or are doing something innovative in their genre. The indie recording artist with only one CD release or mp3s on a web site certainly should not be included. However, indie artists who have existed for more than five year to a decade with a body of published recordings (discography) should be considered, as they would not last that long if they were not making an impact on a fan base.AudioJin 05:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this in general (with some Notable exceptions - in this day and age, I don't see why CD format should be used as an indicator of Notability). Here are two recent (one still ongoing) AfD discussions relevant to the above, where I've asserted as much (N criteria for indie scenes should use a different yardstick, in the same way you would treat obscure, though Notable jazz musicians, or obscure science): [[5]] [[6]] --Jeandjinni 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Members of orchestras

Does third bassoon of the Vienna Philharmonic qualify for a bio, based upon being member of a musical ensemble which has toured extensively and has multiple albums, if he/she hasn't done anything on his/her own? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Not to sound trite, but has said basoonist "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable"? If so there's really little harm in an article... we have a decent ammount of reliable information to put into it and obviously someone cared enough to write about this person, so there's interest on some level. --W.marsh 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Niche Markets + New and Emerging Artists

Throughout the Wikipedia, we see differentiation and specialization of articles, as localities and regions accumulate sets of articles. In fact, this is happening with a wide variety of subjects, which is one reason why the Wikipedia has over 1.5 million articles (and is proud of it). Personally, I can't see why it is necessary to adopt more stringent guidelines for notability for musicians than for other subjects I can think of. I would also argue that many musicians have local and regional success, and hence would reasonably be included in connection with the local and regional articles I mentioned.

It's in the spirit of Wikipedia to keep adding articles. The decision on whether to read the articles should be left to the readers. The key question is whether the articles are concise, well-written, and well-researched, with verifiable information. If we have a lot of short articles on musicians, then that's fine.

The Wikipedia does not just appeal to one market. It appeals to a very wide set of specialized markets. For this, the more articles, the better. Who cares if an article appeals only to people in a given locality or region, as long as it is useful to them? For example, we had a set of articles on the candidates in our municipal elections here in Ottawa, Ontario, including one on Kitchissippi Ward where I live. How's that for notability? I can't imagine that those articles would have been useful to anyone outside Ottawa, but they sure were useful here, as I imagine similar articles were useful elsewhere, in other elections.

Likewise for musicians. There are so many genres and sub-genres of music, and tastes are so differentiated that we need lots and lots of articles. There is also the question of local, regional, and national cultures. In my case, for example, my main reason for reading Wikipedia articles is to find out more about new and emerging singers, particularly in Canada. I happen to have a very strong interest in Canadian culture, and I believe that more people - especially in Canada (but hopefully elsewhere) - should find out more about Canadian music. For our culture, which is always in jeopardy in face of the overwhelming impact of the USA, it’s important for us to support and recognize our new and emerging artists.

I do not want someone in some other country telling me that articles on Canadian singers do not meet their notability criteria. In Canada, there are also regional and provincial music scenes, e.g., Montreal, Atlantic Canada, and British Columbia, to name three that I am interested in. I can absolutely guarantee you that new and emerging singers in those markets would not meet the notability criteria. But why should that matter for someone outside Canada, or outside the areas I just mentioned? Why should someone in the USA or elsewhere be proposing the deletion of articles on our musicians?

In today's world, we need to embrace diversity, and to let localities, regions, and smaller countries write about their own cultures in Wikipedia. In Canada, we have always had the problem of being overshadowed by the USA in matters of culture (and in everything else). So just let us have our Wikipedia articles on our own singers, recognizing the fact that in Canada, we are also much more regionalized than in the USA, so local and regional cultures are doubly important here. Don't set up notability criteria that will screen out articles on new and emerging artists across the country. But the same point holds not only for regions and countries, but also for genres and sub-genres of music.

There is also the question of what's news and where is the value-added. Personally, I have limited interest in reading articles about established musicians that easily meet the guidelines proposed here. That's not news. I already know about those singers.

User:JD_Fan 11 December 2006, Ottawa, Canada

I have to agree very strongly with JD_Fan. It seems music is much harder to write articles about than other things. World Music in particular seems to be difficult: Smaller record labels, not associated with the RIAA. Often very famous in their own countries, but not famous/heard of in the US/West - where 'notability' is mostly decided it seems.
I don't see the advantage of deleting articles so quickly. At least wait 6 months to see if they're added to. This whole issue puts me off WP a) Puts me off contributing, and b) I'm often finding the artist I want to find out more about has been deleted before! Lionfish0 11:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

According to Wikipedia, one of the rules of notability is as posted:

“ It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.1

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries 2 except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.

 ”

Now, there is this band called The Tiny Masters of Today that I am interested in writing about. The band are American, but are mainly popular in Great Britain. Do all these links to various interviews in magazines, such as the New York Times (link), Newsweek link), Drowned in Sound (link), etc make these young musicians notable?

I want to check and make sure it's alright to start a TMOT article firsthand. Fanficgurl 3:33 December 13, 2006 (UTC)

There's no exact standard on what kind of media coverage is "enough". The newsweek link is what I would call a good source. In practice, if what you write is well sourced, there's probably little chance anyone will even want to try to delete it. Ned Wilbury 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
With the NY Times and Newsweek mentions, especially given that the Newsweek piece is largely about them, I'd say they would indeed pass notability. Seraphimblade 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I just heard those kids do a performance/interview on the public radio program, Fair Game a few days ago. You can add this to your sources (see here--includes audio). My opinion is that they have had enough press coverage to easily meet the criteria. -MrFizyx 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Music charts

I have created this article to help people who search for official chart positions for songs/albums find them. It contains links to official charts for many countries, but still needs some countries. I think it will be helpful for those who don't know many of those sites and that this will expand many chart tables. I would like to know if it's good (enough) and if so, it can be used on WikiProject page for chart tables and maybe even further than that (template:Infobox Single/Album and others). -- Luigi-ish 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting resource. What makes a chart, "official"? I don't know how to answer your question about it being good enough for this or that use. Why not explain what you want to do on the related talk pages for the projects/templates? I don't think the people who happen to read this page have any special authority on these things. Good luck. -MrFizyx 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Determining notability for music in minority groups

What constitutes notability in for a musician that is part of the minority (i.e., 350 speakers of the language) in a country where that musician's language is not given any airtime? The musician in question (Mikkal Morottaja) is important amongst his own people and amongst the other minorities nearby, but the likelihood he's ever going to be heard by the majority is pretty nil in a country with the likes of Nightwish and HIM when you also consider the fact he raps in a minority language, Inari Sami. Quite frankly, it's pretty frustrating when the notability standards have been created to drive out non-notable musicians and groups in the American and UK markets, but at the same time end up excluding musicians and groups that are not in markets that chart sales (e.g., minority groups in Russia, etc.) unless they have somehow made it out of their home market. Is this what we really want Wikipedia to be like? -Yupik 08:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, we should widen the criteria so that for these types of musicians. Since minority groups do represent significance within a culture, notable musicians within that group should be noted as well. A good example to argue this point would be Native American musicians. - RiseRobotRise 12:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Also agreed. We need to work out a proper definition of culture/subculture for these purposes, to allow examples such as the two above without allowing every "but they're notable to the 5 people in this tiny niche Internet subculture" justification. Perel 12:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Other cultures often have a much more live performance focus in their music, rather than recordings. Unfortunately much of the 'notability' is based on Western news/charts and recordings via a few large record companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Multi purpose chemical

I've AFD'd this band article as I believe it falls under the notability bar but looks like we could use some more input - anyone who has a spare few minutes please check out the article and contribute so we can establish consensus. exolon 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Music_Notability_and_Music_Guidelines_Archive_4_0f48.html"