User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A lesson from song notability

Perhaps the format should be similar to Wikipedia:Notability (songs), with a few criteria that mark an album as definitely notable, and a list of other criteria that must be considered. If an album does not meet any of the first criteria, the other criteria should be looked at. Let me demonstrate what I mean:

An album is definitely notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

  1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the album itself and reliable.
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following:
      1. Media reprints of press releases, advertising for the album, and other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about the album themselves.
      2. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report release dates.
  2. Has reached certified gold status or higher in at least one country.
  3. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy Award, Juno Award or Mercury Prize.

An album may be notable if it meets one or more of the following standards. If an album meets three or more of these criteria, it is probably notable; if it meets two, it is a good candidate for notability, and if it meets one, it only borders on notability.

  1. The musician or ensemble that recorded the album is considered notable.
  2. Has charted in the Top 20 of any national weekly music chart, or has charted in Top 100 for over six (6) months.
  3. Has been placed on a "most influential" or "best of" list from an major music media source independent from the album.
  4. Is an album that helped define a specific genre of music.
  5. Is a historically notable album for being the first to do something interesting, stylistically or technologically.
  6. Has tracks that were included in a work of media that is notable, (e.g. a theme for a network television show or a movie).
    • Note: If this is the only claim, it is more appropriate to mention it in the main article of that media work, and redirect to that page.
  7. Has had tracks that have been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network, or has a music video that has been aired on a national music television network.

I've bolded things I added. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Song failed because it was too exclusionary. Taking a note from that doesn't seem like the right move. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The major criteria here for inclusion, is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works n statement. This will allow any album I can think of in because of reviews RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that albums can be "notable" without that. Verifiability may be another story entirely, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you got any other suggestions then on how an album could be notable? I'm just trying to bring more clarity to WP:MUSIC as it exists now RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improved inclusiveness

The current guideline (that the artist is notable) is very unsatisfactory, with many notable albums escaping this, and many non-notable albums being included. Even some of the articles I have created would be met with questions of notability. However, I propose that the following is also included as a the secondary criterion for inclusion:

  1. The musician or ensemble that recorded the album is considered notable.

I've added it as #1 on the secondary list above. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a primary/secondary on this, but this should obviously be included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Twas Now's suggestion and hope this satisfies Badlydrawnjeff conserns, I do however believe that this should be a secondary criterion RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to discriminate them like this, it doesn't, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify who's going to be disciminated against? I honestly believe that no-one is going to be discriminated as even indie albums will have reliable sources RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Can I just ask: Why are we (you) setting differing levels of notability? It's either notable or it isn't? I always thought that if a band was notable, an album was (whether retrospectively or otherwise). If this is about to change, I may have to reconsider what I may have wasted my time on for the last six months. Confused. Bubba hotep 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This is very inclusive! It will just bring clarity to album notability, and will read better than; Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm reading it wrong then. My personal viewpoint is that primary inclusion: band is notable, album article is at least a well-formed stub with the very basic info - just a line saying "Album A is an album by Band A" gets redirected to the band article, just a track listing gets merged to band article, but other than that: the onus is on the band notability, not the album notability. Besides, I think WP:ALBUMS would have been a perfect place to bring this up in the first instance if a balanced consensus is to be achieved. (Thanks Twas Now). Bubba hotep 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you think there shouldn't be a primary/secondary classification? I think this division works well, since this is not as clear-cut as other things, such as the producer of the album. Are you suggesting making all of these "primary"—as in, if it meets one, it is notable? It would be very inclusive and I might consider that. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
How about making everything primary for inclusion? RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that is what badlydrawnjeff was going for, and I have no arguments against such inclusionism. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Now you are talking my language! I think I know what you are trying to do with this, but then all we are doing is maintaining the status quo with the current album notability guideline. It is bound to be disputed... again. Bubba hotep 23:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, I can totally see your point Bubba, I just dont think "although a controversial issue..........." reads to well for a guidline! In my honest opinion, this will bring clarity (with the changes already suggested of no primary or secondary classification) and also not be exclusionaly in the slightest. It is more in line with other Wikipedia:Notability guidlines RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we're going to have to actually look at the most borderline articles, the ones that actually stand a chance of being excluded based on varying criteria, in order to figure out this predicament. It's best to have a clear picture of what we're actually causing to be excluded with exclusionary guidelines, or including with inclusionary guidelines. Otherwise, somebody AfDs one article with unexpected qualities and it's back to the drawing board all over again. –Unint 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
An example might be Sunlight Makes Me Paranoid. I know nothing about this album, and there is no reference to any reviews, but it mentions a successful single. So, presumably this single got quite widespread airplay (one of our criteria).
Anyway, notability criteria are only guidelines, not The Law. A responsible admin should not delete every article that doesn't meet the criteria, but instead they should ask: Is this album actually notable? If so, why is it notable? That reason why would then be added to our list of criteria, rather than restarting from scratch. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding badlydrawnjeff's concerns about exclusion

The first article of the list will cover so many indie albums that it is hard to believe any important indie album will be excluded by this set of standards. Pitchfork alone will cover most, my friend (but admittedly, not all of them). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have thought of some borderline cases:

Now, the first few could probably be handled by the verifiability department as well, but the last ones are definitely verifiable. So, some slightly different territory here. Note that all of these meet criteron 1 and even cancelled albums can meet criterion 7. –Unint 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very tough one, so let me give my thoughts:
  • The untitled SOAD demo tape, at this point, I can't imagine having much in the way of value even to a discography. However...
  • ...the second demo tape undoubtedly does. We have cover art, we have more information than what may be on it, and even a semi-reliable source for it.
  • Future albums are solely handled by WP:NOT and should stay that way. Something like the untitled Jamiroquai album has been confirmed, so it meets the standard. If someone made the next untitled Apples in Stereo album article tonight, it would be different.
  • Most interview discs, I believe, are already considered unuseful by the albums wikiproject. This specific disc, however, being the only interview disc by a high-importance band, would probably have an exception.
  • I can't imagine collections of mp3s having any value, but I think that this page may have it right. YMMV. (heh, a car joke)
  • Promo releases, again...I dunno. For instance, Not Bad for No Tour. Entirely necessary to fill out R.E.M.'s discography. I also own a promo single for Guster's song "Fa Fa." That, well, maybe not.
  • I'd think that this would be handled similarly to the future albums. It has in the past, at least.
  • Compilation albums have traditionally been handled by the "notability" of the artists involved. I see no reason to change that.

So yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I think guidelines are great, considering that until now, we have had none. Even if this doesn't change the number of album articles that are kept/deleted, actual guidelines will be a good thing. I agree with Unint that we're going to have to find soem borderline albums, and see if they get excluded or not. Until then, we have no idea how this will really affect things.

I like the primary/secondary split, even though it allows for some judgement calls. If we get rid of the split, I think we need to get rid of criteria 1, 6 and 7 (by notable artist, theme songs, has tracks in rotation). You can keep "notable artist" only with further guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't - compilations, for example. But as I said, I prefer having the secondary split. -Freekee 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some concerns (re: Feb 10 revision)

I see a number of problems here.

  1. WP:CREEP. In my opinion this is the biggest problem with this proposal and may not be possible to fix. Any new criteria should be very simple and easy to sum up in a nutshell. Many of the additional criteria seem pointless. What artist is going to have an album that wins a Grammy or goes "Gold" and not themselves be considered notable?
  2. The latest revision does nothing to fix the problem that was originally given as the inspiration for this. In cases like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Side_Show_Freaks some editors feel that some albums by notable bands are not themselves notable enough for an article. Further some have indicated that they feel there is an inconsistency between the current practice and WP:N. I'm not saying I agree with them entirely, but the Feb. 10th edit offers nothing to improve consensus on this point.
  3. Avoid statements that begin with "Has tracks that ...", this might suggest inclusion of every compilation that rehashes old TV show themes.
  4. "Music chart" is ill-defined. I'm sure you mean to include the Billboard Hot 100, but would you also include Billboard's more specialized charts? How about something like the Folk Radio Airplay Chart, which is based on playlists voluntarily submitted by indepenent folk music DJs?
  5. How does one know what is "in rotation"? Is this published somewhere? Would we rely on original research by editors who have heard the tracks on the radio? What about music marketed to independent DJs that by-passes the radio networks.

Truly, I don't see how this proposal improves our current situation. If we do anything, we need to maintain simplicity and possibly address the concerns that have been raised by several other editors. -MrFizyx 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the list was longer than I would have liked, a bit unwieldy, even. I've narrowed down the list to five criteria (rather than nine)—much more concise. Gold artists and major award winners are virtually all notable, so I removed those criteria. Charting is in a similar vein, so I took that out. I never liked the one about being used in movies/TV, which is why I put it last and included a caveat—it was also removed. TV shows use tons of songs, often from notable artists, but often not. This doesn't make the album notable, only perhaps the song. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feb. 16th version

If the record meets 3, 4 and 5, it will meet #2 (unless it also violates WP:NOR, in which case we can ignore it anyway). So we could get rid of 3, 4 and 5. Of course some would complain that #2 is redundant because it's a rehash of WP:V, but I don't think that's the case. Next, if the album meets #2, is there any chance that it doesn't also meet #1? If so, we don't need #2.

Maybe we could add all of the deleted criteria as examples on the Project page, of the sorts of records we'd like to see articles about. -Freekee 06:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if 3, 4, and 5 implies 2 is true, then we shouldn't get rid of 3, 4, and 5, but get rid of 2. Is that what you meant? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For those watching actual AfD debate arguments: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.O.N.O.G.R.A.M. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WaterWorld Too are currently overwhelmingly for keep. –Unint 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)