Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 19

Proposal to remove "Has won or placed in a major music competition." from "from Criteria for musicians and ensembles"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Propose Remove "Has won or placed in a major music competition." from the list of signs that a subject is notable.

This opens the door to a lot of non-notable subjects. Every contestant from every season of every televised music competition could argue notability on a few references and this guideline. At best this guideline is superflous at worse its an argument for circumventing WP:GNG Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And how would that be? In order to prove that they won or placed in said competition, they would need sources saying so, would they not? None of the criteria are intended to circumvent GNG, but rather give indications of when a subject is likely to be discussed in reliable sources. In my experience, the charting guideline has been much more problematic than the competition guideline, anyway.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I take 12th place in season 7 of american idol. Someone writes a stub about me. this guideline says I'm notable even if the only coverage I've ever received is verifiable evidence I was 12th place on season 7 of american idol. Arguing that it hasn't been a problem is a cop out, if you want to be a reactionary editor go to AFD not discuss guidelines. this standard sets a lower bar than GNG since it doesn't require significant coverage to place in a major music competition. look at average American idol contestant article it's not encyclopedic it's just indiscriminate information about contestants who are deemed notable by this guideline. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@3family6: While I agree, nowhere in the guideline suggests (and even some of the verbiage seems to contradict) the view that this guideline is for identifying potentially notable subjects within the scope of WP:GNG and not providing alternate sources of notability in opposition to the WP:GNG. Perhaps an amendment regarding that point is in order? --Izno (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Izno, I think a caveat explaining that point would be a very good addition. In previous discussions regarding the music notability criteria, it always seems to be the consensus that the criteria are guidelines for when GNG can reasonably be assumed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I would support additional or modified wording to that end. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've never agreed with the "placed" aspect of this guideline. It's never served the notability guidelines well. Mkdw^talk 05:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bryce, yes but it is down to what that singer has made of her/himself. I mean just ending 7th on American Idol is ofcourse not enough. But has this singer placed on the US charts with songs from Idol for example that could mean inclusion is OK. We can not discount singers simply because if they find fame on TV or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposal makes no sense. Not every televised music competition is a major music competition, and the majority of contestants on such programmes do not place anyway. --Michig (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• That I think raises a more relevant point - what are we defining as a major music competition? Something like Eurovision would definitely be a major competition. American Idol I think would be as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence that this criterium has ever been problematic. "Every contestant from every season of every televised music competition could argue notability" is a personal consideration which is way different from what is actually written in the guideline. I don't remember cases in which the criterium was misused, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cavarrone 10:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Response Tell me about a case where the criterium was needed? the argument " it's not bad so keep it" is not impressive. Notability guidelines outside GNG either raise or lower the bar, this one lowers the bar. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• As long as it prevent folks from nominating Eurovision winners or second/third-placed, it is useful. Yes, "it's not bad so keep it", we don't delete reasonable notability criteria just because some folks say they "lower the bar", YOU have the burden to prove that this criterium is/was so problematic as to be removed. And your argument that "Every contestant from every season of every televised music competition could argue notability" is not just not impressive, but highly misleading. Cavarrone 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Let's look at it this way. can you win a major music competition without receiving significant coverage. yes or no. I say you can because we turn Idol stubs into redirects. So your criteria is not in line with GNG. That's why we change it. If you want to argue that it's impossible to place in a major music competition without being notable just state that's your stance.Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I've commented above, but am officially placing a vote now. My rationale is three-fold: 1. It is a stretch to read "major music competition" as "any televised music competition." In fact, below the criteria there is an italicized note which states, among other points, that "Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable." (emphasis added) 2. Removing a criterion because it might be problematic is a slippery slope fallacy. If there are several actual cases given where this criterion was problematic, than an argument could be made for removal. 3. The intro for all the criteria says that satisfying the criteria listed may indicate notability. Which means that a subject could potentially meet even several of the criteria and still not be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• what a catch 22, "the law isn't problematic because it's the law" How can a guideline be problematic? people just follow it, why are there no arguments in afd about it? because its the guideline so those articles are immune for afd so they don't go there. like most SSG they are just used to lower standards for non encyclopedic content. If winning a contest was impossible without being notable there'd be no need for this guideline, the only reason it's used is to lower notability requirement. Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide an example of where it is being used to lower the notability requirement of GNG. In the case of criterion 2 for recordings, charting on a national music chart, there was a point where that guideline included genre-specific charts, and that was abused for notability claims. Something could chart at No. 34 on some genre chart and editors would claim that the work in question was now notable. The bit about genre charts had been added without clear consensus in the first place, and was ultimately removed. My question is thus: Are there similar cases of editors abusing criterion 9 for musicians and ensembles? Your objection: "How can a guideline be problematic? people just follow it, why are there no arguments in afd about it? because its the guideline so those articles are immune for afd so they don't go there." That is an unfalsifiable position. With that rationale, I could claim that the GNG are themselves too low a threshhold, and use the fact that people use those guidelines to support keeping an article in an afd as an example of how so many editors are allowing poor content just because the rules allow them to. What concrete reason, not based in hypotheticals or slippery-slope arguments, do we have to challenge this criterion? And keep in mind, the criterion is not an absolute bench-mark. As I noted in my comment immediately above, something can meet criterion 9 (or criterion 1, or 4, or 12, etc.) and still be deemed unreliable. So I really don't see the point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Haven't got much more to add myself, but I agree that this is a proposal searching for a problem that does not exist. Major music competitions, be them televised or not, generally get a lot of coverage, and those who obtain notable positions within the results will generally get coverage of their own. Bryce, I see you here again trying to stir up a storm for no good reason. Previously, it was "Criticism of" articles. Now it's this. Could you please stop looking for crusades to fight, and instead just edit Wikipedia normally? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Favor - I think there are great arguments on both sides of the question here. I come at it from perhaps a slightly different perspective. I was, until recently, pretty involved in the AfC process. In that area two of the biggest issues were of notability and advertising. Regarding notability, the two biggest issues were always the "genre charts" and "major competition winners or placers". And the folks who write these articles are avid fans of the folks they are writing about, so it is never simply, "except for the person being in the first Idol episode and not making it to the next round, there is no notable coverage...", it would almost always turn into an argument. In fact, it was one of the factors with my deciding to no longer be involved with AfC, it was too tiring and time consuming to attempt to explain to these editors, who simply wanted to argue their case. Onel5969 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• To be frank, how does that experience extend to "we must remove this clause"? There are rabid fanboys of anything. The existence of people wishing to promote musical acts (or anything) should not mean that we can no longer have an article on them. If the criteria is too woolly, it should be tightened, not removed altogether. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In keeping with the air of frankness... let me give you an example. There are Grammy winners who do not get significant press coverage, usually in the more obscure categories, but sometimes even in the more significant (or "popular") ones as well. I accepted several of these, simply because they were Grammy winners, even though the other references were scant. However, in this day and age of reality awards shows, anyone who wins one of those contests always receives significant coverage, if nowhere else than in the industry trades. When a criteria must be tightened to the point where that criteria no longer is needed (because the person would qualify under simply GNG criteria), why have it? Onel5969 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Because General is not specific. the standards set out in GNG (Significant, reliable, secondary, and independent) can use with clarification. In academics what constitutes independent? if a professor works for a university and writes a paper and another professor from the same university cites that work. is that independent? questions like that can be clarified in SSG. the point of SSG should be to clarify GNG not to circumvent.

• Favor removal Until and unless we have consensus for a precise definition of what is a "major music competition", this rule is functionally undefined; it opens the way to people arguing that any and every music competition is a 'major' competition, and hence that the people involved are notable. I've said it before: any rule that gives results that contradict WP:GNG is an incorrect rule, and will be overturned by the general Wikipedia readership in AfD discussions. We should not have rules where a large proportion of the supposedly 'notable' people would fail WP:GNG. LK (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. If it is a "major award" the artist will be covered in point one, surely? And...let's be honest... nobody is entitled to a WP article without significant (or even semi-significant) independent coverage. Makes me wonder how many of the other points after No 1 can be removed too. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong remove Nmusic has rules that are some of the lowest bars for including articles on Wikipedia. This one as written is just ridiculous. Makes me think that music agents or publicists or something is hanging around here lowering the bar. It doesn't fit with the rest of the standards on Wikipedia. Remove it please. Darx9url (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Remove In practice, this has been used to fuel the Eurovision editing machine, which attempts to hold that each and every entry at each and every level of Eurovision is notable.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. The pro-removal arguments hare are missing the point. If some editors are claiming non-major competitions as major, these can be dealt with by specifying these in the guideline. The problems with relying on significant coverage are firstly that it only really helps to write a more detailed article, and secondly that part of the guideline is often interpreted by (sometimes lazy and/or incompetent) editors as the whether or not significant coverage was found from a Google search. There are undoubtedly many major music competitions where due to the period or location in which they took place we will have great difficulty locating significant coverage from a Google search. As long as we can confirm that these are indeed major competitions, deleting articles purely based on the GNG would be stupid - evidence of notability should mean we cover a subject, the amount of verifiable content should guide us on whether this is in a standalone article or within an article on the competition. --Michig (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment response It is not up to pro-removal people to come up with ways to fix the rule. The onus is on pro-keep people to fix the rule, and to justify why it should be kept. Can you point to AFD arguments where a notable article would have been removed except for this rule? If it serves no function it should be removed, per WP:Avoid instruction creep. Darx9url (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone wishing to change a long-established guideline that clearly makes sense needs to demonstrate that the guideline is wrong, not simply that some poor editors are claiming minor contests as major. Someone who wins or places in a genuinely major contest is obviously suitable for inclusion, and nobody has yet come up with a good argument against that. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's a very simplistic view of the proposal. My support for the removal is based on that it adds nothing to the first guideline. If something has won a major award then it will pass GNG. All the discussed wording adds is wriggle room with what is "a major award." The guideline GNG doesn't need or deserve wriggle room. If there is an instance where something has won a "major award" but does not pass GNG then I should reconsider... --Richhoncho (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• The whole point of subject-specific notability guidelines is to provide sensible criteria and balance to the deeply flawed GNG. As I stated above, the GNG is usually interpreted as whether or not significant coverage has been found, not whether it exists or is likely to exist. The SNGs allow us to keep articles on subjects that are verifiably encyclopedic but where we may not be able to find the significant coverage that would demonstrably pass the GNG right now. --Michig (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• The viewpoint that the GNG is "deeply flawed" is a bit problematic, especially if you think the flaw is that it doesn't permit articles to be created. I've always viewed the purpose of this SNG as defining exclusion criteria because the GNG is ridiculously broad when it comes to pop music. In general, an SNG should never be seen as a method to bypass the GNG, as they are a method for gaining consensus about general rules for applying the GNG to a subject area (such as this guideline's indication that mentions of songs in the context of an album review doesn't indicate that the song itself is notable).—Kww(talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• The GNG is flawed because the premise behind it simply isn't the best way of defining which topics are encyclopedic, and too many people don't seem able to think beyond it; The GNG alone both allows articles to stay that don't belong in an encyclopedia and allows articles on encyclopedic topics to be deleted. WP:N is clear enough that a subject is considered notable if it satisfies either the GNG or an SNG. --Michig (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Remove The intended meaning of the word "placed" in "won or placed" has been debated here repeatedly, without consensus. Opinions on its meaning range from "finished second" (apparently a more American usage) through "finished second or third" (apparently more British) to "finished anywhere, up to and including last, in fields of 10, 12, 16, 32, etc." The latter interpretaion has been invoked at AfD as justification for keeping articles on each and every participant in a Junior Eurovision Song Contest, regardless of how far down the field they finished. Criterion #9 cannot be called a generally accepted standard when there is no consensus on what it means, and the possible meanings are so widely separated. Follow the KISS principle and remove this problematic criterion. Worldbruce (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep criterion per User:3family6's arguments, which I find persuasive. If clarification is required on what constitutes placement, that seems footnotable. (I rather fear that Junior Eurovision Song Contest placers are precisely the kind of people who would pass on GNG regardless of this criterion because pop media loves to talk about those kinds of people. And who they're dating. And what they wear.) There are music categories, however, that don't attract the same kind of populist press where respected competitions can make a difference in demonstrating notability. Winning the Geneva International Music Competition, for instance, is pretty notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep criterion per User:3family6's arguments, which I also find persuasive. Removing it is a very blunt instrument, which can cause real damage which greatly outweighs preventing purely speculative problems. This would particularly affect classical music artists who rarely receive wide coverage in the popular press, and especially those from Eastern Europe, thus adding to systemic bias. Winning or placing highly in a really major international classical music competition indicates that the person is a notable musician in their field. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep criterion per User:3family6 and User:Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment and question Can User:Voceditenore or User:4meter4 point to an article that would have been deleted (but shouldn't be) except for this rule? I can point to one that would be argued kept only because of this rule Daniel_Seavey, 16-year old high school student who's only claim to fame is placing ninth on the fourteenth season of American Idol. I'ld take it to AfD, but someone is sure to point to this rule and argue 'keep' per MUSICBIO #9. Many of the articles on List_of_American_Idol_finalists probably exist only because of this rule. If there should be special criteria for classical musicians, why not write something below Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Notability_of_recordings, instead of having it here where it affects everyone? Darx9url (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why should it be special to classical musicians? There are other musical categories (jazz, blues, for instance) that are not as featured in popular media. That he scored 9th would seem to be an issue with the interpretation of placement; I wouldn't argue to keep somebody who scored 9th in the Geneva International Music Competition. Winning a major competition is notable, I believe, regardless of the genre. Placing 9th in a major competition, probably not - not unless your performance was pretty spectacular. :) ("On learning he had lost, Contestant X set fire to the stage....") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Darx9url, there have been many examples of classical singers and musicians in the past, but I'm not about to go searching through AfDs. Here's an example of someone who could hypothetically be taken to AfD if this change were enacted—Nadine Koutcher. She sings primarily in Perm Opera and Ballet Theatre in Russia. Media coverage is not easy to come by as she hasn't sung much outside Russia, but she has just won BBC Cardiff Singer of the World and in 2012 won the International Vocal Competition ´s-Hertogenbosch. However, Moonriddengirl is right, it's not just the classical genre. She's also right in that the problem is really with the definition of "placed". Perhaps tighten that up to First or Second only. It certainly shouldn't go down to 12! I wouldn't consider articles for the other Cardiff finalists (apart from the winners of the Joan Sutherland Prize and the Song Prize) without further coverage or fulfilling one of the other criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, even though simply being one of the five finalists there is quite an achievement. Throwing out the whole criterion because of a problem with specifying more clearly what is meant by "placed" is simply throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If you google "Nadine Koutcher" there's tons of good sources about her, both on websites and in the news, so I don't think she makes a good example. That said, is there any objection to clarifying in a footnote that 'placed' in #9 means to come in first, second or third? Darx9url (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that. The further away you go from winning, the less "notable" your participation becomes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl:True as a general rule, but there's always team Jamaica cases, where mere participation is so unlikely as to be the notable thing. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

True enough, LeadSongDog, but those are the cases I think where you probably meet WP:GNG. :) Not unlike the "Contestant X set fire to the stage..." example I made up. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Darx9url, I wouldn't have any problem with that. It's a principle I already apply when !voting at AfDs. Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - why should we remove one of the most strong signs of notability. Makes no sense.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It would allow a resason for people looking down on Idols, Eurovision Song Contest, national Eurovision Song Contest preselections and such to delete just because they don't like the concept, causing a witchhunt on articles about such topics. J 1982 (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support for removal. Anyone who became sufficiently notable through a competition would almost certainty meet one of the other requirements, and if they don't at a minimum have multiple examples of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article then either the competition wasn't "major" enough, or they made so little an impact that they shouldn't have an article. Anyone who did well enough on "Idols, Eurovision Song Contest, national Eurovision Song Contest preselections and such" should be able to pass "Criteria 1". Therefore, there's no need for "Criteria 9" as it is currently written. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - in favor of the compromise below. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

The above discussion seems pretty deadlocked between 'keeps' and 'removes'. I suggest that we compromise and hopefully reach consensus with an amended rule: Darx9url (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition."

• Support The amendement would address my major objection to WP:MUSICBIO criterion #9, namely that the wording is interpreted to mean wildly different things by different editors. Opinions on the meaning of the current word "placed" range from "finished second" (apparently a more American usage) through "finished second or third" (apparently more British) to "finished anywhere, up to and including last." The latter interpretation has been invoked at AfD as justification for keeping articles on each and every participant in a major music competition regardless of how far down the (large) field they finished. If this amendment were adopted, I would no longer press for removal of criterion #9. Worldbruce (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a reasonable change.4meter4 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This finally adds clarity to that old headache of an issue regarding "what is a major competition". I'm loving this new revision. Oh and Worldbruce, to reply to your point in a thread above about Project Eurovision, AfD's and the use of the criterion to keep Junior Eurovision bios. Think that is flawed. All the Junior Eurovision bios that have come 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, have been kept (per AfD recommendation). The others all have merger proposals on them, and are waiting the advised 7-day debate period to elapse. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 10:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Though i do not agree that there is a deadlock.. it is a pretty clear Keep consensus, I support this one. If for anything to stop the nonsense arguments of a person winning an major awards not being notable. uggh.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. As someone who has initiated some of the AfD's discussed above, I think the mergers and the 1-2-3 proposal is the right way to go. Two points though. Firstly. Great care should be taken with the creation of articles for contestants under the age of 16. To establish their notability requires high quality references and take into account WP:NPF and WP:BLPNAME. And they should not have their own page until the competition has concluded. Secondly, if the contestant has failed to develop any career of note in the five years since participating, the bio should be merged with the contest page. I suggest that these two points are included as a footnote to the rule. Karst (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• support my own preference is only to have first place getters but this is a reasonable compromise. Having a 10th placed person is stretching it. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• This new suggestion still fails by not defining what "major music competition" actually is although it modifies the definition of winning, but it expands it to add third place whereas the earlier was only first and second. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support A reasonable compromise and certainly an improvement on the current criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. 'Placed' means first, second, or third in much of the world. In most competitions top three places is a reasonable cutoff below which attention diminishes. So to me this is just clarifying rather than changing the meaning. It would probably be worth giving general guidance on what is and is not a major music competition although it would be virtually impossible to produce a definitive list, but we can deal with that separately. --Michig (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/place?q=Place#place__20 see definitions 3.1 and 3.2. I am leaning toward removing the "criteria" completely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as written because we still end up with no help in defining a "major music competition". How about stealing language from criteria 4: "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of a first, second or third place finish in a major music competition". Any "minor" music competitions aren't going to have non-trivial independent coverage. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - When the criterion was first written, I do not think it was intended to cover people who placed significantly low in a contest where a ranking is not actively made. With shows like American Idol, we have a passive ranking where people are given a de facto rank when they are eliminated due to the method of the show's elimination style. Most contests that actively award places will put people into the top 3 spots; this obviously doesn't happen with shows with one elimination at a time. This clarification adopts what I think was intended when the criterion was added. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment Seems pretty clear to me that this compromise proposal has consensus. Can someone please close the discussion and implement the proposal. As proposer, I probably shouldn't do it. Darx9url (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Darx9url: It has already been done, just not had this thread closed. So there is nothing wrong (I assume) in closing it down, as long as you link to the change to cover your back. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, and even though you rescued the archive, the content is still archived. Just hope it doesn't send the bot into a fit of confusion, lol. Wes Mouse ✒ 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SPA issue

User:Morrissey1976 requested a move for the Cornerstone dab page. Come to find out most of his edits are to Cornerstone (Austrian band), the indie label ATOM Records (who released an album by the band), and the articles for the two albums and single the band has released. In fact, he created all of those articles as User:Morrissey19766 and must have lost his password. I've cleaned up the articles as best I can, and the label clearly isn't notable (and hasn't updated in 10 months or so).

My question on the band is this: they had one single chart at #50 on an Austrian chart for one week (which meets WP:BAND) at the end of 2013. The interesting thing is, however, that single was a charity single where all the proceeds went to a UK hospital. I find it interesting that of all the band's work, only that song charted, only for a week, and fairly low, all things considered. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the sales were because of the charity connection, not because of the quality of the song. That single is also the only thing of note the band has done in 16 years of existence that I can find a reliable reference for at all. The band's website has links to interviews and press releases, but they seem to be all local radio, and many of the links are dead. Would this be considered perhaps not meeting the criteria in spirit, or are we required to have articles on the band and every release they've had because one single charted for a week and thus they meet WP:BAND? MSJapan (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, an old diff seems to indicate a connection to the band - [1], where the user indicates he "owned and created" a piece of artwork used for one of the articles he created. MSJapan (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the band is not notable. Nominate for PROD. If you want a seconder, I'll do it. Just post here as a reminder. If it's removed, take it to AfD. You've done WP:BEFORE and can show the abnd does not meet GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Most label pages have few updates as third party sources are generally hard to find. With two albums and a charting single (whatever the circumstances) it is likely to pass an AfD or PROD. Maybe let User:Morrissey1976 know about this discussion? Karst (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering that I found this debacle as the result of tendentious editing and malformed move requests contrary to policy on the part of this user, presumably to get visibility for the act whose articles he created (and which are his sole contribution in six years and less than 100 edits), I cannot AGF, and thus do not see that as a productive activity especially with edits like this, where a misleading edit summary was used to disguise removal of templates. MSJapan (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

OpposeUser:MSJapan, I find this discussion very oddly, to be honest. We can arguably discuss, if the site of ATOM Records is necessary for Wikipedia, but the deletion request for Cornerstone (Austrian band) looks like grief to me, for reasons, that are unknown to me. "I am inclined to think that the sales were because of the charity connection, not because of the quality of the song" is a very strange view of yours of the WP guidelines. Maybe you weren't there in school, when they did geography, but Austria and United Kingdom are two different countries, and the charity happened in the UK, the chart result happened in Austria, people there bought the song because they liked it, and not because they wanted to support a charity cause in the UK, which is on the other side of Europe. ("Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."). Yes, they had. Beside the fact, that the band toured through the United States and the United Kingdom seven times ("Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"), a fact, that you have, accidently, of course, removed from the Cornerstone WP. Several music-magazines and websites reported about that, you may check out the band's press-area.

The 2008's release Head Over Heels was released by Sony Music (Major label) in Europe (2010), and Somewhere in America, which you have proposed for deletion, too, hopefully, was introduced by national Radio OE3 in Austria (Playlists available - but I wasn't quite sure, if this is relevant for an english WP-page -> "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network"), the song "Right Or Wrong" from the album was awarded as "Ballad of the year" by british Rockrealms Magazin (which isn't, unfortunately, active anymore). The album was introduced by more than 100 musicmagazines, worldwide, mags like Classic Rock or or Powerplay. ("Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"). You can find those links in the press-area of the band's website. I don't know which site you've checked out, but I've found 3 or so dead links. "Somewhere in America" was introduced by BBC Radio, too, just to mention that.

The band delivered to songs to the soundtrack "Little Alien", which was shown in cinemas all over the world plus Austrian National TV. You can see the several awards, with which the movie was awarded (Erasmus Award, Outstanding Artist Award, etc.)on the movie's website [2] ("Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc."

I'm not a periodically contributor to WP, and most of the stuff is music-related, so you're right, there are too many editions happened, which is clearly a mistake of mine. I've requested the movement of the Cornerstone dab page because for me it's sounds like a logical thing, to get a page with the different meanings of the term "Cornerstone", and not one meaning, with a shortlink, that there are more meanings. Of course I did this, to get more recognition for my site... along with the other sites, that are listed on the disambiguation-site. But just to mention you example of Editng of the ATOM Records... if there is a notification on the top of the page, that the site should be improved, because of dead tags or whatever, I'll do that. As said before, this whole discussion and deletion request sounds like a personal thing to me, for whatever reasons, and not an objective point of view.

But, seen from an objective point of view: there are four or five points of the WP:BAND fulfilled, so what the heck we are talking about here? Btw, many thx, User:Walter Gorlitz for helping with this BS. Morrissey1976 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (CET+1)

Wait a minute, you purposely wanted a page moved to "get publicity for your site", and then prod two articles I worked on in retaliation, claim you've reported me to Wikipedia for vandalism, and I'm the one with the personal issue? Sorry, ANI time. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Single charting criterion

So it seems that the majority of the community believes that charting a single for a week and meeting no other criteria entitles the act to a Wikipedia article. I have a real problem with that simply because it creates a data dump, often of stubs, and often becomes publicity rather than an encyclopedia. There's also a huge difference between charting in one country and in another because of market size.

I think that something needs to be clarified with respect to NBAND and NSONGS where it is not apparently implied that meeting NSONG means the band automatically meets NBAND. Otherwise we're really going to objectively need a category for literal one-hit wonders.

I think if we're going to retain charting (as I see someone else mentioned it), I think we need to do something to establish chart longevity or something. "Notability is not temporary", but when you can't chart the history of an act at all, it hardly makes sense to write an article on them for the sake of one single, especially when it charts 2/3 of the way down for a week, and did so for a reason aside from the song quality.

I guess what I'd like is some dynamic criteria, rather than establishing notability "if it technically minimally meets one of these multiple things." An actual notable act tends to meet multiple criteria, but otherwise NN acts do too. There was an act that got a song placement on regional cable news; I couldn't write an article on them, because they got no coverage otherwise and broke up soon after. I know a guy who got a song placed on a national network soap opera; there's nothing else there to write an article about. Meanwhile, Beth Orton started out with a TV placement, got the coverage, the tours, the record deals, etc. She definitely meets the notability threshold. Amy Winehouse "in development" wasn't notable, but once she hit it big, definitely. Matisyahu was niche as all get-out and wasn't even known outside of NYC until he got a lucky break and got on TV. There are a ton of notable Japanese indie guys who got tons of coverage in the national mags years ago, but that doesn't mean that every act they bounced through afterwards is notable, especially when a lot of them only released one single. The ones who've continued to do things outside of bands, like Gackt and Yoshiki have maintained their fame. There's a lot of acts where there were two otherwise notable guys, but the act went nowhere and there's just nothing to write about, though they'd be notable for the "two musicians in the group" criteria.

I guess I just think that because the industry is dynamic, we need to be in tune with that. This isn't science or history, where something is either true or not; there's a huge gray area, especially with self-release, online press, and digital download on the rise, things are too crowded and too fluid. I think we need a better threshold of notability overall. MSJapan (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with stubs as long as they're properly sourced. The guideline is there to be used as a 'rule of thumb' - I think it's too often misused as a rule to justify either inclusion or deletion. A one-hit wonder that has a genuinely meaningful hit on a genuine national sales chart will in my view be worth including. An artist that reached number 73 for one week and where we don't have much else to say about them, maybe not. I'm not sure we can specifically cater for every instance on every chart in every country in a guideline - we need to rely on people using a little common sense and treating the guideline as just that, and not a rule. --Michig (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove "charting" from WP:NSONG?

Should "charting" be removed from WP:NSONG? The reason I ask is that there is currently an article about a song where the only evidence of notability is that it charted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoko Ono (song). No one, however, has been able to come up with a reference.--Nowa (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Here's a source that shows that it charted. Charting at number 46 in Germany indicates that coverage may exist but if sufficient content can't be found it should be merged into an article about the band or the album it was taken from, per the guidelines which are perfectly reasonable in this respect. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Charting should definitely not be removed from WP:NSONG. In the vast majority of cases, charting is a good indication that adequate coverage exists. If there are exceptions, those can be handled on an exception basis, such as merging as Michig suggests, since NSONG only gives indications that a song may be notable, and even if it was a guideline that said "any song that charts has adequate notability," as a guideline it is still subject to exceptions when there is consensus to make such an exception. Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Another suggested change

I would like to propose changing

may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

to

may be notable if at least one of the following criteria are discussed in a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]:

or something similar. It will take away some of the guesswork that has been going on as well. 03:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• That seems unnecessarily restrictive; many of the numbered points already mention reliable sources. According to your proposal, it's not enough to have a certified gold or above (3), or to have been nominated or won a major award (8), or have been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast (12), these events would also need to have been "discussed", and what does that mean? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It means that being nominated means nothing if a reliable source doesn't discuss it. It means that a "substantial broadcast", which is already vague, means nothing if a reliable source doesn't discuss it. That's what it currently means, it's just not clear and some editors assume that they're standalone criteria, which it's not. It means that a subject "may be notable", but it really means nothing if a reliable source doesn't discuss the subject. Not self-published sources. Not an entry in AllMusic that says they charted somewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary change since we already have WP:V that must be satisfied. Repeatedly trying to reduce everything down to the GNG isn't really helpful. --Michig (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not the case. V is not the threshold for notability, RS is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. Meeting one or more of these criteria is the threshold for notability, or at least a general rule of thumb that the subject does. Sources satisfying WP:V demonstrate that they meet these criteria and need do no more than that. --Michig (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The criteria here are not stand-alone. You have been living under that misconception and stated it several times before. Sorry to break it to you this way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Patronising comments are really no better than making the same tired arguments over and over again. Please read WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline...or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right", i,e, including this one. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I had not read that. It must be a change since I read WP:N in 2009. In that case this criteria needs a complete overhaul because it allows too many non-notable individuals and bands from being included. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's only a guideline, and it will always be community consensus rather than a guideline that decides what is and isn't included. This guideline seems to reflect community consensus (which is what it should do) quite well. Actually back in 2006 WP:N consisted solely of subject-specific guidelines, including this one, which was created in 2005. It's a shame we didn't continue down that path in my view as the GNG is deeply flawed from both an inclusion and exclusion point of view. --Michig (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not treated that way. Editors go to AfDs and simply point to items in the list to support their notability. Items 2, 5 and 6 have been the most frequently used "reasons" in my experience. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be treated as a rule of thumb even though some editors treat it as a 'rule' and often misinterpret or mis-apply the guideline. The same applies to the GNG. I think that's a bigger problem than any of the guidelines being wrong, and one that needs those editors to change rather than the guidelines. It's up to closing admins in AfDs to look at consensus and good arguments made either way, and whether claims of satisfying guidelines are actually true. --Michig (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I too am not sure what "discussed" means in this context. There would still need to be a reliable source (possibly a primary source) that the song achieved gold status per WP:V. I am not sure what sort of "discussion" would occur in a source (primary or secondary) about the song reaching gold status. Nor do I see the need or desirability for requiring such a discussion. Reaching gold status would be an indication that the song has achieved significant coverage, because it was popular enough to achieve a milestone that few songs do. If there is nonetheless little to say about the song from reliable sources then either the article will be very short, or the material will get merged. Rlendog (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to provide different wording if you're hung-up on "discussed". Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request on "national rotation" criterion

Can we rewrite Criterion #11 for bands?

"Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."

I've beenthinking about this, and no matter how I look at it, I'm not clear as to how this works. For example, "national rotation" is different in San Marino than it is in the United States. I'm actually not sure how to find national rotation in the United States, because I think it's dependent on whether a large station owner like ClearChannel picks it up or not. Even then, a New York City radio station won't get picked up terrestrially in LA. Also, there are very few music television networks around anymore. They're around, but they don't play videos, and that doesn't even include the audio music channels on the cable box, or services like Pandora and Spotify (which shouldn't count anyway). Anyhow, I think the mechanism is dated and not as useful as it might have been.

I think it also lends itself to abuse, intentionally or otherwise. For example, an article cited a BBC Radio playlist as a source. It violated COPYLINKS, but nevertheless, it sounded national to me, because BBC is national, AFAIK. Closer scrutiny by a UK user showed it was a Lincolnshire local BBC station. If the validity of a source can only be verified by someone familiar with something like local radio coverage, that's not really good, or objectively useful. Similarly, college radio lets students host shows and play music. If it's in a major city, that shouldn't make the band notable even though the potential market is huge. Internet streaming is even worse; anybody can go to any radio website anywhere these days, so we don't really have a useful definition of "major" anymore. MSJapan (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This makes sense. The key, though, is that the criteria whereby GNG may be met. If they're in rotation, someone may have written about it. It would be better to remove this criteria because it is likely to be reflected in a chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just so we don't end up with some inconsistencies, it's also NALBUMS #6. I do think the chart reflection is likely as well. Even if it's an older song on a "classic" station, most of the time, the song or the album has charted, or the artist is clearly notable. How do we open the policy discussion to change this? VP? MSJapan (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A number of Billboard charts are based on airplay and streaming. As long as those are referenced I do not have much of an issue with it. Especially if it is listed on their website and can be referenced. What is a valid chart or isn't perhaps should be discussed at WP:CHART - and has been at length I think. Other then that I think the criteria is fine the way it is and actually should used for some of the older songs from the 1980s to ensure they qualify through some of the older Billboard issues. Karst (talk) 10:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I had to think about your comment for a bit, but I think you're mixing criteria. I'm concerned about not being able to create an objective criterion to define "rotation." I don't see either an objective measure of "rotation", or an objective definition of "national radio". Now, if rotation leads to charting, that's covered by criterion 2, "single or album on national music chart", isn't it? I would think a Billboard chart is objectively national. So once it charts, it's objective. MSJapan (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

'National Radio' isn't a difficult concept in countries such as the UK, where we have stations that are clearly national (and where we often can find sources to show playlisting/rotation) and many that clearly are not. Airplay doesn't count towards the singles chart in the UK AFAIK. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is difficult in the US, because it's a totally different setup. All radio is regional because of tech limitations (except for on the Internet, where I can stream any station from anywhere as long as they're set up to do so), and almost all of it is private, except for National Public Radio. NPR or the Clear Channel Network genre-based stations are the only real "national" stations, and that's only because they're drawing from a set content pool that goes out to all of their regional stations. Even then, NPR doesn't play popular contemporary music, because the licensing fees are too expensive. "Back in the day", the famous DJs like Alan Freed were famous because they were major-market, and they did drive popular music (via bribery or otherwise). There are some well-known major-market stations that did drive content, but I don't know how true that is anymore, because many of them have changed formats.

Because it's so different, maybe there needs to be an exception for the US that says that US airplay records have to come off of Billboard charts {like [3], compiled by Nielsen, or USA Today here, compiled by MediaBase? In each case, the outlets are nationally-known and distributed media, and the compilers are independent companies that specialize in data collection. Now, if we can do something similar for other countries, I think I'd buy that as more objective criteria than needing to guess at what constitutes "national rotation". MSJapan (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I, for what it's worth, have never been thrilled with that criterion and would absolutely favour its deprecation. In most cases, it's nearly impossible to reliably source anywhere other than a primary source record of the station's playlist, and it's prone to deliberate or accidental misrepresentation — such as the playlist of a local station that happens to be affiliated with the network rather than the actual network itself, or claiming an ownership group of stations which don't actually air common programming as a "network". And I've seen people try to extend it to internet radio streams as well. Furthermore, it's extremely rare, if not entirely nonexistent, that a person could ever actually satisfy that criterion without also satisfying at least one other item in this list anyway. So in practice, it ends up serving as a de facto exemption from GNG rather than a genuinely useful proof of encyclopedic notability — because the vast majority of the time it has to rest on a primary source rather than RS coverage. So if it's the only claim of notability that an article can really make, then it's probably not actually a keepable article because the sourcing is almost certainly inadequate. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity: "A few years"

Criterion #5 under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" reads as follows:

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

Surely I can't be the only one who finds this a bit ambiguous? Criteria should be hard-set, and "few" is a relative and subjective term. I propose that this criterion be rephrased to more fixed terminology. Mproncace (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mproncace: Agreed. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about WP:NALBUMS

I happened to find that some album articles such as Sole and the Skyrider Band (album), Plastique (album), and Hello Cruel World (Sole and the Skyrider Band album) are tagged {{notability}}. Each album meets WP:NALBUMS criterion #1, having been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it". I think meeting just one of the WP:NALBUMS criteria is sufficient to make an album notable by Wikipedia's standards, but I wonder if it is okay to remove {{notability}} from these articles. My question is: when an album meets just one of the WP:NALBUMS criteria, is the album notable and can we remove {{notability}} from the article? 153.218.137.214 (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that the coverage that exists is sufficient to establish notability, so they could be removed. If the editor who put them there disagrees, they can always start a discussion on the article talk pages. --Michig (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If they meet No. 1, then they also meet WP:GNG. If they don't think they're notable, they could take it to an AfD as well, and really annoy the general editing public. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to define "album" for criteria

I tried searching the discussion archive and couldn't find this (sorry if I missed it and this is redundant).

In WP:BAND #5, it states "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

My question is on the definition of "albums". Is this only full-length albums? I presume singles are not counted, but what about EPs? Many EPs are essentially extended singles; while others are all new material, and still others contain both singles plus previously unreleased bonus track or two. Presuming it's on a qualifying label, so as to not have that variable ...would it depend on what material is on the EP on if it would count - or are only full-length album releases relevant for this criteria? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The dictionary defines "album" in the musical sense, as "a phonograph record or set of records containing several musical selections, a complete play, opera, etc." So unless the EP as "several musical selections" then I wouldn't consider it an album. Afterall, we wouldn't call a CD with a single track an album either so whether its on a CD or an EP shouldn't make a difference. It's more about quantity. Mkdw^talk 18:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That definition begged for clarification on the word "several", the dictionary I have defines that as "more than two". So are you saying that an EP which contains three or more tracks would meet the threshold?

Some EPs contain an extended single with two B-track items - what if all three of those tracks were also a subset of a full album (common in singles releases, having one or more b-tracks), would it count separately from the album?

My request for clarification is related to an AfD. There are two releases under a major label. The first release was an EP with two new tracks and a re-release (or re-recording) of a track previously published by an independent label. Two years later, they then come out with a full album that contains both of those new tracks from the EP, plus 8 additional tracks. Clearly, that second release qualifies ... the question is on if the EP would meet the threshold as well. Before commenting on the AfD, I wanted to get clarification here on the interpretation of WP:BAND #5. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes these ambiguous words are perhaps unhelpful when dealing in numbers as low as 2 or 3. I think if you're looking for a hard and fast rule whereby an exact number. such as 3. is cited won't likely happen. There's definitely going to be a grey area where "several" is the best descriptor to be intentionally ambiguous. Ultimately these are only guidelines to determine notability. Even if the album meets some of the criteria here, it doesn't really mean anything if it doesn't meet WP:GNG. There will be non-notable albums that have 6 tracks released by major record labels and even notable bands that aren't suited to having a stand alone article. It's just a guide. Not a criteria once met infers definitive notability. Mkdw^talk 22:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Duplication of meaning in "criteria for musicians and ensembles" #1

The "criteria for musicians and ensembles" #1 says "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" (my bolding added). Shouldn't the phrase "appearing in sources" be dropped, so that it reads just "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"? Nurg (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that would change the meaning of it perhaps. The emphasis needs to be on the third-party sources/references. Otherwise it can perhaps be argued that a song has been part of a number of compilations or other primary source material, would be notable. While in fact it might not be. Karst (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

First, it's a reference to WP:GNG:

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

The sentence here would change its meaning, and doesn't even make sense grammatically, if it were changed to:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Is this what you were you thinking?

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

If so, no, the sources must be reliable, not just the works. So I'm not sure what you were thinking. Please elaborate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking (and said):

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Take, for example, a book. A book is a work. A book can be used as a source. But it would be rather odd to call a book "a work appearing in a source". Nurg (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

By making the phrase bold, it confused me. I see how you excluded the latter phrase. No, it's not odd to call a book "a work appearing in a source" because we are making it clear that we are referring to reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

How about this then:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

That makes it clear that we are referring to sources. Nurg (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not the subject of multiple source, it is multiple works in reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. When you talk of "works in reliable sources", what do you mean by "works" and what do you mean by "sources"? To me these are different aspects of the same thing, not different things, nor one thing contained within a larger thing. Nurg (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A newspaper is a reliable source. A magazine is a reliable source. AllMusic (a website) is a reliable source. A work is a review or article of the band, tour, album or song. It would be rare for an entire book to be written about an album, although it has happened. That too would be a work. I've linked how you can identify reliable sources are above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Popular bands only

The criteria for notability excludes all who are not financially successful. If Wikipedia existed in the time of Mozart, he would not be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubemeister (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability doesn't require financial success, nor would financial success render a band notable. The requirement is that we have enough disinterested and reliable reference material to write a full and neutral article from that material. If that wouldn't have been true in Mozart's day, then you're right, Mozart would not at that time have been notable. Later on, of course, that would change. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There are many artists who would not meet any of the criteria here except No. 1, and they would be notable. Criterion 1 is the only criterion that an artist MUST have in order to meet notability standards. All of the other criterion are indicators that an artist has satisfied criterion 1.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Financial considerations are not a criteria. Mozart might not have been considered notable, but if I read my history books correctly, his music, particularly his operas, did receive general coverage and his music was recognizable. "Charts" didn't exist at that time and he wouldn't have been paid any more than he was if his music was popular. The criteria would have been different. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Indie music at AfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Songwriters

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

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

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

Strange sentence in NSONGS

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

Bias against notability of artists from early recordings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post AFD

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

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

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

Music awards from radio stations / online magazines

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

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

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

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

Cover of a song used in an advertising campaign

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

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

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

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