[edit] Notability of Independent Musicians & Ensaumbles

According to Criteria 7 "musicians & ensaumbles" section, and Criteria 5 in the "others" section, the majority of independent artists would be considered notable. However, due to lack of commercial financial success or media attention, are frequently not included in Wikipedia. I present a series of major reasons as to why independent musicians should be included in Wikipedia.

Overview: Many independent artists self-fund international tours, recorded works (such as singles, EPs, LPs, etc). Some such artists are signed or affiliated with independent record labels who provide funding in part or entirely. This means they have released various recorded material, many are far more prolific than those in the commercial music industry. Their contributions to the commercial music industry are seen many years or decades into the future. This is not an exaggeration, if you think it is, please learn more about music in the world.

Financial Factors & Overlooked Promotion: Just because a group or individual, asociated or not, with a record label, management or promotion group, has the financial means, does not make them any more significant or important, in the tangible sense, than anyone else. The majority of the actions required to be broadcast by a media network (including in print) or receive chart success are directly related to how much money the group or individual has to spend on elements such as promotion. Despite this, many independent artists self-promote (create their own press kits, establish their own industry contacts) and much of their promotion is by word of mouth, a difficult element to track.

Contributions and Significance to Music: The contributions independent artists make to not just musical genres and styles, but every aspect of music, should not be underestimated or overlooked, regardless of their financial situations or prominence within the comemercial media sphere. Many such contributions are of far greater significance than those in the commercial music industry as it only represents a very small portion of music on Earth, and mostly the more marketable, saleable styles and genres in accordance with trends of the time.

Notability within Wikipedia: Wikipedia is one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias in existance, it contains both broad and specific information, and could potentially provide people access to very detailed and specific information, this is and could increasingly be, of great importance to everyone. Since when did the level of popularity and profit rdictate who or what is significant? For example, many species of plant of animal life may not be popular, or generate profit, or even be known, but this does not make these particular species any less important or significant. Perhaps this is an issue that extends beyond just music and concerns notability in general? Most of the criteria within the "musicians and ensaumbles" section is directly related to financial circumstances and affiliation with commercial entities. This must be discussed in further detail. Nick carson (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Point #7 requires meeting of the policy WP:V. Any band that meets that policy should meet WP:MUSIC under criterion #1. Any band that does not meet WP:V cannot be included on Wikipedia, as arguing for their importance (in the absence of WP:RS) would constitute WP:OR. These seem at first blush to be insurmountable barriers to inclusion of unpublicized independent artists on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

They are also insurmountable barriers to the future of Wikipedia. History can't be written by the most commercially sucessful, who've been written about in the mass media, although that is how our past history has been written we all recognise that it is inappromriate as it exculdes vital information as is the case currently in WP regarding independent artists, musicians, writers, etc. Just because they may not comply with WP:V & WP:RS in many cases, does not mean they don't exist and certianly does not mean they are not notable or verifiable in the truest sense of the words. It may seem as though I'm a little voice for a little minority, but in truth I am a little voice for the majority of music that is created, recorded and performed, as most in the independent industry couldn't care less if they're included in something like WP but their apathy towards encyclopedic inclusion is no reflection of their true importance, significance. These policies should be discussed simultaneously as it has emerged that there are some major problems with the way these policies exclude significant historical information of encyclopedic importance. Nick carson (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tours?

We seem to have artists, albums, singles and songs covered, but what about tours? For example I came across Guns, God and Government (tour) earlier, and looking at {{Marilyn Manson}} there's plenty of other equally dreary articles. Similarly {{Metallica}} has a large number of articles about tours, from what I can see mostly created by Madmax.pt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I'm tempted to go to AfD, but thought a second opinion or two couldn't hurt first? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• All that I can say is they should abide by WP:V and WP:N. Tours by well-known bands should have plenty of press coverage, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrait of an American Family Tour. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• If you want to see completionist tour information, check this example out. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• The thing is - have the tours received much press coverage or just individual concerts on them? As if we're not careful, we're opening the door to say that any concert you can rustle up a couple of reviews on can have an article, which will be lunacy. So would WP:N need to apply to the tour as a whole, as opposed to reviews of parts of it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• All that is required is that one makes a good faith effort to find sources before nominating an article for deletion. Take Marilyn Manson's Grotesk Burlesk tour, for example. Here's a guy known for his shock tactics on tour, and yet, no Google news sources, one possible Google books source (which, on closer inspection, is not about the tour), and only a couple of MTV and Yahoo Music blurbs, which are about the album release party. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Tour Chronology navbox? You've got to be kidding me. Everything in that infobox (except the chronology part), and the opening sentence is (barely) notable enough to be summed up in a paragraph in the album article. Nothing else is notable. -Freekee (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well don't just stand there. Do something about it!</sarcasm> Uh oh. My closing tags aren't working... -Freekee (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's governed by WP:NNC for Marylin Manson. The consensus for the editors actually working on the article was to arrange it like that, so if there are problems, it should be discussed with them first. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 21:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Torc is right. We can't nominate the template for deletion. I have refrained from nominating the Marilyn Manson tour pages themselves for deletion because there are pages and pages of articles on bands and associated albums, songs, tours, side projects and so forth for bands that are only known to a couple of hundred people in Bumfuck Egypt that have to be addressed first. If anybody else feels like nominating tour articles for deletion, look over the 520 pages that use the infobox concert tour template for truly unheard of bands. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a very pertinent point, Torc, but my complaint was about the article itself. Since there is very little info in the article worth saving, I think it should be merged with the band or album article. No tour article, no tour template. Obviously, the question needs to be answered as to the notability of the tour.

Blast, I think the Manson tour articles would be perfect to nominate for deletion, depending on the outcome of a Notability search. Or if they turn out to be okay, let's find the highest profile tour we can, that doesn't show up in the media. Upon deletion, we can use them as a yardstick for deciding what other pages to Prod. Also, if these bands you mention truly are unheard of, why don't we just AfD them?

I really hate to sound like a deletionist, but I also hate for Wikipedia to become some kids' fansites. -Freekee (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I prod tagged a few for you. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The second line of this guideline is "Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion" —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't Speedy, I Prodded. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I see that. My objection's the same: these aren't uncontroversial. There's no harm in taking these to full AfD. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That'll just annoy folks at AfD, they'll say, "Didja try prodding first?". Blast Ulna (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And you can say you did. I don't agree that these fail notability for reasons I've already outlined: they are simply content for articles about the artist and most, if not all the information should not be discarded. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not trying to be like Discogs or some other compendium. The Prod tag allows 5 days for editors to deprod or to transfer the information somewhere. So your deprodding is uncool. The community already said at AfD that Marilyn Manson's Portrait of an American Family Tour was not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Prod tag allows five days for editors to deprod, and I did. Am I supposed to be excluded from eligibility to contest a prod with which I disagree? Your example is pretty meaningless since we have no idea what the content was. I can find plenty of AfDs for tours that resulted in keep, no consensus, or merge. There is no set consensus for tours, which is why I contested undiscussed deletion. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also say that AFD being cited is far from definitive, 1 keep, 1 delete and one conditional delete. Ridernyc (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of debate suggests that nobody cared, and that the admin chose correctly among the choices presented. You will also note that nobody complained when the tour dates and setlist were removed, leaving a rump article with nothing to say. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is, there really isn't much in terms of content restrictions for articles. The whole huge page could be merged with the main Marilyn Manson article, and then the contents would be considered entirely appropriate and notability of the tour itself would be irrelevant (per WP:NNC), but that would make the article too long and stylistically awkward, and force the content to be moved out of the article. We're trapped in a loop of two (or more) guidelines that cause identical content to be judged differently depending only on formatting, which makes no sense at all, but nobody seems to be in a rush to resolve the problem. WP:NOT is the closest we come, and that policy is ambiguous to the point of being essentially useless. So we keep the subarticle on the tour separate, just like an album. If somebody wanted to push for a resolution between WP:NNC and WP:SIZE/WP:SS/WP:FICT, etc., and some real guidelines on what is acceptable content, I'd love to see that get through. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get back to the intent for which this section was created. I'm personally in favor of the synthesis between WP:NNC and WP:FORK, but I think it is beside the point. I percieve that some editors have the misconception that tours are innately notable, possibly through OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacies, I think, as per WP:N without sources that reflect otherwise, tours are not sufficiently notable to deserve an independent article. I think that often times, these tour articles are for tours that directly relate to the promotion of a specific album. Often times, the article for that album is no where near the limits of WP:SIZE. In those cases, I think it is sufficient to mention the tour as a subsection of the album article. I have no problem with a redirect, particularly when the name of the tour does not match the name of the album. However, my main point is, to save the trouble of taking people through this logical process, it would be much simpler and more convenient to have a section here explaining when it is appropriate for a tour to have it's own notable article, and when it is not. It's just easier to point people to WP:BAND#Tours than to point people to WP:N and then have to explain to them why it does not apply. How does that sound to people? -Verdatum (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caught in a Mosh notability?

Yeah, that says it all. See its talk as well. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Great song but not really notable (except for totally rocking, which, unfortunately is not part of WP:MUSIC). Redirect it to the album. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I get any additional input from other uninvolved third parties? I generally agree with User:Hello Control, but I've been heavily involved in this article and would rather not be the one to piss on others' Cheerios. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody else have any input; it would be appreciated. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it could have borderline notability in that it has been included in notable media (the videogame) as well as on the album and in that it has been singled out for specific attention by VH1, though such lists are not worth much for notability as they go. If the article were chock-full of sourced contenty-goodness, one might argue against a merger on that basis. But it's not. If you merge it to the parent album (it looks like all that needs merging is its place on that VH1 list), those doing a search on the song will be able to locate information about it there. I'd support a merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless it seems likely that there's more info out there, I'd support a merge as well. Even if it's theoretically notable, there doesn't appear to be a significant body of citable information on it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It should stay because it's arguably their most popular song, it's in a video game, and it's considered one of the best metal songs. However, this guy owning the article and making it horrible doesn't do it justice.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What's in this article that isn't already in or can't be easily included in the parent article? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. Not because of its notability, but PD's owning of the article and making it an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A charted hit on any national music chart - What's a hit?

I have a concern with the second criteria for musicians and ensembles.

  Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

The criteria itself actually doesn't really concern me, just the definition of "hit". Is it a single or an album? Does it have to be a "number one hit", a "top 10 hit", a "top 20 hit" or a "top 40 hit"? Does it have to reach a particular position, or is a musician which releases a single that peaks at 97 or 39 as notable?

I would appreciate if some-one could clear this up. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's really no set criteria for that as far as I can tell. As long as it's a major singles chart, it should be good. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

so if it's on a chart, it's okay? -Freekee (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally, yes. (It might depend on the country and the exact nature of the chart in question in some cases) Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Typically, within the industry and speaking from experience, #40 or higher is the threshold most-commonly used. --Winger84 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be regionally specific, as the threshold is usually determined by the countries individual characteristics. Nick carson (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If an artist charts an album and not a single on any national chart? Is the artist not notable? This is the case for several jazz musicians? I'd appreciate some help. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary worship music

I'm involved in some discussions regarding the notability of contemporary worship songs, which tend to have a very short "shelf life". The existing song criteria are not really relevant to this genre. This is my first pass at some more relevant criteria:

• A song will be regarded as notable if it is at least five years old and has appeared in the CCLI Top 25 (issued every 6 months) at least 10 times in a single territory. The appearances do not have to be consecutive. (Reason - it is difficult to establish notability for recent songs, which may be popular for a few years and then fall into disuse, meaning they are probably not notable, and a song needs to have been popular for a prolonged period in the same region before it could be considered notable).

• A song will be regarded as notable if it has been published in at least five songbooks (each containing at least 100 songs) over a minimum period of ten years (Reason - inclusion in multiple substantial books over a prolonged period suggests notability and will eliminate most ephemeral material)

• A song will be regarded as notable if it is has been described as such (or as a "classic" or similar) by an authoritative independent verifiable source no less than five years after the songs inital release. (Reason - we should accept the views of experts but disallow premature claims to notability.)

• A song may be regarded as notable if exceptional circumstances exist that are not covered by the above criteria.

I also felt that the "performed independently by several notable artists" criteria wasn't really relevant for music intended for congregational use. Most notable worship songs will have been recorded multiple times by different artists, but I'm not sure the inverse is true, unless the recordings have been over a significant time period.

Comments would be appreciated. Sidefall (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Regarding the first criterion: I may not be utterly opposed to it, but your argument is not convincing. The fact that recent songs have had little chance to chart and therefore become notable is a feature, not a bug. What does it take for a song to achieve that?
  • Second criterion: Sounds like it might be reasonable. Are such songbooks typically published by a division of major publishing companies?
  • Third and fourth criteria: I don't think either of these need to be stated. Notability criteria are meant to be used to gauge the likelihood of sources existing that can be used to flesh out an article. If authoritative independent verifiable sources cover a song, and our article cites them, notability is not a relevant issue. And exceptional circumstances could really only be proven by citing authoritative independent verifiable sources.
  • Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major Competition

Is winning a battle of the bands notable?Saksjn (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on who is hosting it and how much coverage the competition receives in news sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criterion 6, Limitations

Criterion 6 states that notability may be determined by a band which "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable..."

I'm thinking that we need to discuss limitations on this. Several times now I have come across issues on CSD'd articles that claim some tenuous grasp on notability through generational loopholes in this criteria. In other words: You have Band A which is non-notable except that Lars Ulrich from Metallica was a member for fourteen minutes when he got really drunk in High School. This is all and good on it's own. However, what happens when you have someone from Band B who is claiming notability because one of its member went on to be in Band A who gained de facto notability from the Drunk Lars incident. The logical conclusion of this train of thought leads us to a very real situation where the policy allows notability of a joke of a band because it has a member who was a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band, who posessed a member of a band who had a member who once played backup keyboards for Stevie Nicks.

I don't like a loophole in a policy which makes every single band in the world notable just by playing "Seven Degrees to Kevin Bacon."

Thoughts? Trusilver 04:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps adding "This criterion has commonsense limitations" would help? Since obviously the case above does not make much sense (assuming there was no other coverage and that is the ONLY claim to notability). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 04:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide's idea is fine. I think any extreme cases would have a lack of verifiable sources, and less extreme ones can always be redirected, as is already noted. Tuf-Kat (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good approach to me as well. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It does suggest using redirects instead of an article. I don't think you need to add that as common sense and Ignore all rules intrinsicly apply to every policy and guideline anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Added it in; [1]. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are karaoke versions notable?

On RC patrol, came across an album which was simply the karaoke version (no vocals) of anther album. Are karaoke versions notable? Should they simply be speedy deleted with {{db-band}}? --John Nagle (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I strongly doubt a karaoke album is notable. I do not, however, see db-band as applying.

WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS says, "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines." Are there third-party sources with anything meaningful to say?

"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable," Probably just studio hacks.

"Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Again, seems doubtful.

Without actually seeing the article, I can't be sure. But it sure sounds like a goner to me. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be mentioned on original the album's article that it was popular enough to have a karaoke version made of it. If you did, you'd need some justification, and therefore have to find references to back up whatever you said about it. -Freekee (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mixtapes

As I see no consensus for this change, I have removed the disclaimer about mixtapes added today from the guideline. If any mixtape has sufficient sourcing to verify notability, whether original content or not, it may meet this guideline. If it doesn't, it probably isn't notable enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is a "single" a "song"?

In a number of discussions, editors wishing to save an article that does not meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC#SONGS have argued that a "single" is not a "song", essentially saying it is more of mini-album or EP. I would like some clarity added to the #SONGS section to clarify whether or not the guideline considers singles to be songs. Thoughts? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, a song is an individual thing--"Amazing Grace" is a song. OTOH, I can see some confusion in how they're handled. Stronger (Britney Spears song) is kind of a munge between an article about a single, including track listings, and an article about the "a" side song. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a pervasive confusion between the two. Others editors establish context by identifying it as a "song" while others use "single". But for me, I use the former. After all, its not the single that gets reception but the song. The single is only a format. --Efe (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

They should not be confused. The same song may be recorded by many different artists and appear on many different recordings. A single is a particular recording of a particular song by a particular artist. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus, how should an article on a single be treated? As an album or a song? I understand why an album or a song might be notable, but a single? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A single is notable if it sold well. A song is notable if it's been recorded by a number of artists, award winning, or just plain famous (like "Happy Birthday").

I think the real question is: when do we need separate articles for these things? In most cases, these articles are harmlessly combined. For example, Mony Mony is about a three notable things: Tommy James' song, Tommy James and the Shondells' single, Billy Idol's single. On the other hand, Somewhere Over the Rainbow is only about a song, with a tiny bit of info about who recorded it. Here, only the song is notable. Stronger (Britney Spears song) is about the single, with a tiny bit of information about the song. Here, only the single is notable. This is all as it should be.

These would be my suggestions to improve this guideline:

This guideline should probably replace the title Albums with Albums, singles and other recordings, and replace the title Songs with Songs and other compositions. That would be more comprehensive and logical, and would end the confusion that started this discussion.

The section on compositions should suggest that information about non-notable compositions should appear in either the article about the composer or the article about the most famous recording of the composition (i.e., the single or album), or both. The section on recordings should suggest that information about non-notable singles be added to the article about the song, or the article about the recording artist, or to the article about (the most famous) album it is included in, or all three. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd go a little further. Simply replace Album and Single with Recording, Performance or Session. Notability for assembling several recordings in a package (or worse, a re-release under a new label) is, to my mind, bogus. Song should be reserved for the composition. Under Somewhere Over the Rainbow one expects to learn about the composition. Of course that should include sections on notable performers (Garland), performances (Carnegie Hall, Baum's movie Wizard of Oz...), recordings, etc. Under Judy Garland one expects to see discussion of that song, it's milestone marks in her career, etc. Under Wizard of Oz one expects to see the songs, the performers, the dates of the recording sessions and film shoots, perhaps even the various release formats (35mm, 70mm, Beta, VHS, DVD, Bittorrent,...) But we don't need a separate article on her performance as rendered in each format.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support CharlesGillinghams proposal, it makes perfect sense to me and would help clarify the confusion between "song" and "single". However I would not go as far as LeadSongDog suggests in his first sentence. "Recording, performance or session" is in my opinion not equivalent to "Albums, singles and other recordings". An album (or even single, The Beach Boys' Good Vibrations immediately comes into mind) is often recorded over many sessions; a performance is often a live rendering. No, I don't think it is the same thing. – IbLeo (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Rereading my above, I see it was a bit ambiguous. It wasn't my intent that Recording, Performance or Session were equivalent terms to each other, but that one or another of the three would suffice to encapsulate most of the article types we would want, in a way that album and single don't quite do. The point is not that the three terms are the same, but rather that they are not independently notable. Would we really want separate articles for Good Vibrations (first session), Good Vibrations (second session) etc? I think the topic would warrant at most a section in the Good Vibrations (recording) article.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe I wasn't clear either :-) I actually didn't think you meant "recording", "performance" and "session" are equivalent. They are not, and I believe we agree on that. However, I would say that the article Good Vibrations should be about the song (i.e. composition) rather than the recording. It should of course contain the story of The Beach Boys single which is obviously the most notable recording of that song (which it actually does). If any of the particular recording sessions were notable, I agree it should also be contained in that article (which is actually the case). Let's say that U2 recorded this song and released as a single and it became a hit. Then I would include that single into the article as well. If Barbara Streisand performed the song on the top of the Apple building, that would probably also be notable enough to go into the article. So yes, "recording", "performance" and "session" can each make a song notable, but I would still put that information into the article about the song – not in articles of their own. It's getting late - I hope I make sense. Cheers. – IbLeo (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asserting Notability

My article on The Tuna Helpers was previosuly speedily deleted on the grounds of lack of notability. It was a poor article, only one paragraph and not doing much other than noting who performed on the second album. Please let me know if the current article fails to meet notability criteria, and what I can do to better assert notability, as some of the sources are as published on the band's site, though I used external references whenever possible. I'm checking with Adrienne about citing her orientation, because the info is on her personal MySpace page, which she doesn't post on her top friends for either her band or solo performer pages, and I feel this would be a violation without her OK. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concern

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

I have a concern about the section in bold, It seems pretty vague, what's a scene? how big a city? In my opinion this whole criteria is redundant as the only way to to prove this is to have sources which would qualify under criteria 1 anyway. --neon white talk 05:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's vague, but I don't think it's redundant with #1. I've seen articles (can't say specifically musical) deleted at AfD because the sources were too local in nature. I would interpret this criterion as saying that this is okay if those regional sources are documenting that the band is of unique notability within that locality. Frankly, I doubt that would come up a lot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The original point of it was that, if a field like Azerbaijani hip hop is notable, at least the one most prominent representative of that style is probably notable, even if there's no other reason for it. Tuf-Kat (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's documented in sources it's notable anyway? --neon white talk 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of musical singles

The same principles of notability that apply to songs should not apply to singles.

Singles, as defined here on Wikipedia, are "[...] a song usually extracted from a current or upcoming album to promote the album," but the methods that singles are technically distributed says "[...] packaged as "single" records with one or two other songs and sold before the release of the album," completely redundant.

If a single is released as a "single" record, that technically means it's more of an album than just a song in itself, because it's released usually with a few other songs and has it's own track listing. In a practical manner, singles are usually released as physical CDs, they usually have their own jewel case, lyric booklet, CD, and their own track listing. Therefore, I think we need a new policy for notability on singles, as WP:MUSIC#SONGS doesn't seem to be a good judgment of these separate packages and articles for singles are often made as articles for songs, and not the singles themselves. In other words, a lot of articles are redundant for saying that the article is about a single, but then making the article out about a song or titling it about a song (for example: Psychosocial (song)), and that renders the "single" un-notable, simply because the song that's the main focus of the article, isn't notable. The song isn't, but the single itself, track listing and all, might be, so we need a new policy.

We need new policies that cover singles, and not just songs, as I have just proven that these are two very different things. dude527 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. :) Is there some reason that WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS should not apply to singles? It seems based on your argument that it should. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I think something like that should be the standard for singles. Not WP:MUSIC#SONGS, but WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, or maybe even create a new category for specifically singles? dude527 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that a new category would be perceived as instruction creep. I'm not sure it's necessary, unless you have in mind proposing some highly specific criteria that would only apply to singles. What did you have in mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, tell me which currently applies to singles: WP:MUSIC#SONGS, or WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS? dude527 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't. I'm not a definitive authority. :) I myself would apply WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS to them. It seems like you would as well. Based on the conversation three threads above this one, there are varying opinions on this. Stage one of any proposal is probably specifying which you propose should govern and working from there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(exdent) We have some undiscussed grey here.
For openers, we have performers challenged for not meeting the two albums on a major label criteria because they have one album and one EP. If a single with a b-side is, in effect, an "album", certainly an EP is as well.
Immediately following that is the idea that an actual album plus a single (now called an "album") is two "albums" (though the single is "from the album").
Next, some singles are nothing but the song. A digital-only single might be just that one song and nothing else. But here we are considering a new definition. For RIAA certification, a 7" 45rpm is the same single as a cassette single, CD single, 12" single, digital-only single, etc. which may have various b-sides/bonus tracks on the various forms. But we're now going to consider a single to be, essentially, an "album" under some as yet undecided circumstances. Is a digital-only single consisting of one song a "single"? Currently, it might be. This discussion might decide that the industry/RIAA considers it a single, but wikipedia does not.
Finally, we aren't entirely clear on when a song becomes a single. Certainly, there are clear-cut instances: an album is coming out, radio is serviced with the first cut, MTV gets a video, stores have a single for sale, etc. Other times, it isn't so clear. Maybe there's radio service (AOR often gets deeper cuts than Top 40) but no physical release and the individual song can be downloaded apart from the album. Is that "single" akin to an "album"? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why we need some middle ground. WP:MUSIC#SONGS obviously isn't cutting it for every single single that is released, yet you pointed out the obvious flaws in judging it by WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. We need a middle ground. A point that's accurate judgment for every single. dude527 (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You raise some good points there, Mdsummermsw. If we were to specify that single notability is determined by the same criteria applied to albums, we would probably also need to specify that this does not mean singles are albums as that applies to the notability of a musician or ensemble. That said, the current definition of notability for albums seems to me to be applicable to "singles" anyway, since it boils down pretty much to: "Is the band notable? Is there independent coverage? If yes to both, then an article may be appropriate, provided sufficient information to sustain a separate article exists." I would think when there is no physical release, you'd be discussing "promo-only", which by the album criteria is generally not notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the criteria applied to albums is also valid for singles, yet the points made above make me question if I consider a single to be an actual album. dude527 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that this a serious problem, though correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't really matter, does it? If a single meets one of the album criteria, it's probably notable; if it meets one of the song criteria, it's also probably notable, I think. I see "assigning" singles to one category or the other as a pointless exercise in semantics. The instructions on this page should perhaps be modified to make that more clear, but I don't see any reason to make any major changes. Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're doing, minor changes. But singles can't be judged by both categories, so we have to, in one way or another, make it a bit more precise, where singles go. This is to keep Wikipedia clean of articles that don't belong, and to make sure articles that do belong, stay. It is important, because Wikipedians are perfectionists, and we can't look at one thing and be able to judge it by two separate categories, because then if it failed one, but met the other, it could stay. We need the alternative of clarifying the standards by which singles are judged, because the current system for it, is not effecient by any means. It's just too confusing for users to make an article, have it get deleted because it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS, but then see some other article, with less notability and information, and see that it passed simply because it's artist was notable. That's a little confusing but if you get what I'm saying, great, and you see why we need an alternative. dude527 (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As currently written, an album by a notable act is, by default, notable. If a single is a song, it falls under WP:MUSIC#SONGS and is, by default, not notable unless other conditions are met (i.e., it has charted, won a major award or been recorded by more than one notable act. - Mdsummermsw (talk)

But, judging by the comments made above and other Wikipedia stipulations, that seems to be your own judgment and not actual rules. We need actual rules for this stuff. dude527 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus, I think it should be more about digital, and physical CD releases then the number of tracks. dude527 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming?

Would someone mind taking a look at all the new pages created by User:Hip Hop is Alive? I don't think most of them reach the notability threshold, but I'm not an expert here; if they are indeed not notable, I'd appreciate someone prodding or AfDing them.

Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of B-sides and unreleased material.

I have started to nominate several articles that list B-sides and unreleased material for deletion.

I have been successful in deleting/merging with Garbage B-sides and Coldplay's b-sides. Perhaps there could be more discussion in this policy on the notability of articles that deal with unreleased material and B-sides. I believe strongly that these are not notable. ASCAP and BMI searches yield plenty of song titles that bands have not released, but this does not make them notable. I feel that my current AfD's (ABBA unreleased songs, Kylie Minogue's leaked material, Björk b-sidesand List of unreleased Spice Girls songs) are being hampered by fan pride. A policy change would help in clarity, or at least some discussion on this, would make it clear in my mind whether it is worth nominating these kind of articles for deletion. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of b-sides and unreleased content should be merged into that artists discography, or the correlating album's track list. dude527 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chart/Notability

According to WP:N#SONG, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts,". Is there a specif regulation as to how high or long a song has to chart to be deemed meet Wikipedia's Notability standards? Given there are hundreds of songs that chart each month, does that mean that each of these songs can perhaps merit their own article? I'm currently involved in a discussion over whether to merge No More Sorrow (charted at 124 on Billboard 100) into talk:Minutes to Midnight (album), on the basis that the song does not assess much notability, and does not have much verifiable content. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Any song that has charted, and has enough verifiable information to merit it's own article, is noteworthy. If there's a small amount of verifiable information, but the song charted, then it's generally not notable. dude527 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recording versus Song

Somehow, we've gotten the ideas conflated, causing no end of confusion. At least in the guideline, we need to disambiguate the concepts of Song (recording), Song (performance), Song (arrangement), Song (orchestration) and Song (composition). The vast majority of performances and recordings of a notable composition will not themselves be notable. Different orchestrations or voicings will almost never be notable, (except where they radically depart from prior ones, e.g. the early uses of string orchestration in rock by the Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc.) But virtually any surviving compositions by major composers (say, Maurice Ravel or Irving Berlin) and any compositions widely re-arranged or widely recorded (covered) would be notable on their own as compositions. Quantifying the criteria may or may not be helpful. Comments? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supergroups

Would a supergroup have any special circumstances within the scope of WP:MUSIC? Especially since in most cases they are formed of otherwise notable musicians, but usually do one performance at all. I bring this up alongside a AFD for Automatic Baby. ViperSnake151 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a need for any special consideration for supergroups. Some, like the God awful GTR, are clearly notable (and, in this case, clearly foul). In other cases, such as Automatic Baby, "... it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects." There's precious little to say about this one performance, and it easily fits elsewhere. Will anyone who has never heard of U2/REM/etc. be looking for info on this "band"? Doubtful, and there's nothing to say about them, other than this song. A redirect covers the unlikely search term. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to the wording. Need consensus.

I am a bit disturbed that the demos for bands are not normally considered notable. I can see why mixtapes and bootlegs are not notable unless covered in third party sources, but a demo that is officially produced by the band should be considered notable. (now, this is assuming that the band is notable.) The current wording is

Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

My version would read like this:
Individual articles on albums need not recieve independent coverage if and only if the band has been deemed notable. Mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Demo albums are considered notable if the band has been deemed notable.

Now, here is my reasoning. If the band is notable, then the albums should not really need to have a lot of independent coverage. I work in the field of black metal and most bands in that genre do not recieve the biggest attention online or in text. I think, that if a band has recieved favorable coverage, then every single album by that band need not recieve individual coverage. The band has already been established as notable so the albums should be notable in that sense. I think that demo albums should be the same as regular albums in notability issues. A demo is the starting point of the band. It is released to the public to see how it does. It basically gives a preview of what is to come. That, in my opinion, should be notable. I also understand that my wording, my new proposal, may not be the best. If you think of a better one, I'd be happy to hear it. Thanks. Undeath (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I don't know enough about what you mean by "demo album" to comment on that. Few demo albums, surely, would gain commercial or public release, so would fail to be notable. How is a demo album different to a demo song? Both are rough, unfinished versions produced only as part of the creative process rather than to be part of an artist's catalogue. If my understanding of what you're discussing is correct, then I oppose demo anythings being classed as notable.

On your other point, that all albums by notable artists be deemed notable, I agree. But this was argued vehemently at the Album notability discussion above, without consensus. I think it really ended in a stalemate between inclusionists and exclusionists. The whole argument, and some of the purist attitudes by deletionists, wore me out so much I decided I couldn't be bothered creating any more album articles. Grimhim (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A demo album is a collection of songs put onto a format to be released to the public. Single demo songs normally aren't released on their own format, but are more likely limited to online release. Undeath (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by 'demo album'? I see this quite a lot in articles about metal bands, and it seems to have a different meaning to other types of demo. Demos are usually 'rough' versions of tracks that later appear on released albums, singles, etc., and demos themselves are not usually released - they're also rarely notable. Unsigned bands commonly sell demos until they get a record deal. With metal bands, the 'demo album' seems to be a self-released album more than anything else. Is that correct? I think the general guidelines about demos refer to the 'rough' versions that are not intended for release.--Michig (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to most metal bands, a demo album is self released due to a lack of money. Some bands release demos after a full length is released. I've noticed that some demos are being tagged with PROD. I have been undoing that until a consensus is reached here. I am not over exagerating when I say there are hundreds of demo album pages on wikipedia. The time it took to create those pages ammounts to something quite substantial. And, if anything, look at the fact that a demo album is still an album. If this is an encyclopedia the band would have a listing for it, and it's releases. A demo is an official release. I don't like the idea of having pages for bootlegs, but a demo is essential. For example, the demo Go Fuck Your Jewish "God" by Watain started the band. It's a relatively well known demo. (I have it, and I think it sucks, but it started the band) For fans of the music, and for people wanting to learn about the band, the demos tell the story. They show the progression of the band. Taking away a demo page gives a gap in the discography. Another example would be Behemoth's transition from black metal to blackened death metal/death metal. The early demos of the band were strictly black metal, but now, if you listen to them, they have changed completely. If you were un-educated towards that particular band, you would now know they were black metal. The demos need to be deemed notable if the band is notable, regardless of coverage. They tell a far too vital story for people needing the information. Undeath (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

and demos themselves are not usually released - they're also rarely notable

I have to disagree. Most demos are released, but as a limited edition. Being notable or not is the issue with wikipedia, and please see my above post in regards to that. Demos are essential to the story of how a band began, developed, and, in some cases, ends. Also, not all demos are rough tracks. The rehearsal demo from Dimmu Borgir is a great sounding tape. (one of my rarities in my collection) Undeath (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll type this out too while I remember. If a demo is non notable, why is an EP considered notable? Some EPs are basically a demo with a different standpoint to it. Also, a lot of full length albums by notable bands recieve hardly any coverage, but, in my opinion, that does not make them non notable. I whole hartedly agree that any official release, demo included, by a band that has established notability, should be deemed notable on wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

'Demo' obviously has a different meaning in metal circles to elsewhere. Most demo recordings, in music generally, are not released nor intended for release - they're just (relatively) cheaply recorded versions of songs for the purpose of getting approval and budget from a record company to record them properly. If we're talking about self-released albums of studio recordings that a band have paid for themselves, then that's different because they are released, but I think there needs to be some evidence of independent coverage to have an article on them. Without such coverage, what can be said about the album apart from a tracklisting and release date without getting into WP:OR territory?--Michig (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that the "Jewish God" demo has much claim to notability under the guidelines on the project page. Why not create a "Demos" section in the Watain article and list them there? Grimhim (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this. It is a demo released by a band called The Mandrake. It was released to the public, and this one did attract some reviews. However, at it's inception, the watain demo did not attract any attention. Today, though, it has. Just a simple google search shows this. I don't know if a separate version of notability should be established for metal bands. As of now, the way I see it, a metal band's version of a demo is a released piece of media that was not recorded at full potential. (i.e. funds aren't there) I don't know if we could amend the notability standards to incorporate a different section just for metal bands. I have many, many, many demos by metal bands. (over 1200) If other genres release things differently, I don't know, but when it comes to metal, and it's subgenres, (especially black and death), a demo is released. Undeath (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this could be a new proposal. At Rate Your Music, a demo is normally falling under the category of an EP. This can be seen here. Maybe, and this is again me talking mainly about metal bands since they release their demos, we could put a longtype on the infobox that states demo. It would look something like this :

Once again, most metal bands do release their demos. (most release them on tapes, but some are on Cds or LPs) Undeath (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me a little is how broad our definition of 'demo' is. I think this should be worked out on a case-by-case basis- a lot of demos are never released or even mentioned to the public, and are strictly a behind-the-scenes thing. Conversely, other demos effectively become albums in their own right, and are only different because they were created in a slightly different way. I strongly oppose a blanket inclusion of demos, and feel that this should be done on a case-by-case basis. We do not have automatic notability of songs, music videos or even singles, and some demos are a single track, where as some singles (off the top of my head, Nine Inch Nails and Combichrist singles spring to mind) are as long as your average LP, and even longer than the shorter ones. As such, I do feel that a lot of the basically-an-album-but-sounds-more-grim-to-call-a-demo releases do deserve articles, but that many demos do not. J Milburn (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Undeath. Demos are not rarities in heavy metal music. The definition of demo provided in the wikipedia article on the subject does not really apply to heavy metal. We are not referring here to recordings that are made to get a recording deal with some labels - many heavy metal demos are already released on record labels. What we are referring to here are releases that are commercially distributed to the wider public. Like many other fans of heavy metal music, I have plenty of demo recordings in my collection. We can legitimately purchase many demo recordings of heavy metal bands when we can do no such thing for more mainstream pop or rock music. It is not uncommon to find professional reviews of demo recordings such as this or this. Look up a heavy metal band's discography on or offline and you'll find that their demos are generally listed alongside their albums or singles releases. Popular online databases like Rockdetector and Encyclopaedia Metallum list demo recordings. They even provide links for visitors to purchase the demo recordings where available. The latter even feature fan reviews of demo recordings. The fact that some of these demo recordings can attract multiple reviews from different fans indicate that they are quite commonplace in the heavy metal community. For instance, Pure Fucking Armageddon has nine different fan reviews here. I am fully aware that fan reviews are not reliable sources but that's not the point here. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that demo recordings in heavy metal are commonly treated as ordinary releases.
• Other than semantics and length, there's really not much of a difference between a self-released album and a self-released demo for heavy metal. If a band only has self-released recordings, then they are probably not notable enough for wikipedia. But if a band is notable, then wikipedia policy suggests that their all their previous self-released albums may be treated as notable as well - so why not, as Undeath suggests, their self-released demos when these are commonly treated as normal, ordinary releases? The thing to remember here, to emphasise again and again, is that we're not referring to the sort of demo recordings that one find in other genres of music that are never intended to be commercially distributed to the public but only shopped around across record labels to get a recording deal. We are referring to demo recordings that are meant to be released to the public. In fact, many demo recordings in heavy metal are actually released on (mostly minor) record labels: eg. Hiidentorni, Obey the Will of Hell, Promo 2002, etc. Likewise, many demos that were originally self-released were later re-released by record labels: eg. Fhtagn nagh Yog-Sothoth, Satanas Tedeum, Epilogue, etc. Some bands even released demos even after they are already well-known (in their respective scenes): for instance, Einherjer and Horna.
• Of course, if a band only has a demo recording, then they would not be notable for wikipedia. A band with multiple albums released might not be notable either. But if a band is notable, then policy here on wikipedia indicates that all the previous albums that they have released are similarly notable. What Undeath is suggesting here is that we extend this policy to cover the demo recordings for heavy metal bands because unlike other genres of music, demo recordings of heavy metal bands are commonly treated as normal, ordinary releases. I do believe it would be pointless having an article for a demo - or even an album - if all we can have is just a track listing but if (verifiable) information can be written about the release, then it really should not matter whether it was commercially released as an album, single, EP or demo. As long as it is commercially distributed. I would suggest then a rewording somewhere along the line of In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released recordings may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia if there are sufficient verifiable information to expand the article beyond a mere track listing. I feel that it should not matter what format these recordings are nor should it matter whether they were commercially successful or not. I feel that the only thing that should matter, as long as the band is notable, is that the recording is commercially released and that there is sufficient verifiable information that can be written about the recording. We should not have to demonstrate that the demo recordings from these heavy metal bands are notable in the same way that we should not need to demonstrate that album recordings from the same bands are notable. That's my two cents. --Bardin (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I strongly oppose both suggested changes to the WP:MUSIC criteria, and believe others