Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 21

Members of only one notable band - slight reword proposal

I reworded "'Note that members of notable bands are redirected ..." to state "Note that members of only one notable band are redirected" but this was reverted and I was told to discuss it on the talk page instead. So that is what I am doing.
Personally I think it's a non-controversial reword since the text in question relates to musicians who fall short of Criterion #6 "... is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles...." (my emphasis) by dint of having only been a reasonably prominent member of just the one independently notable ensemble. All my reword does is make that point a bit clearer.
However, if you require, as a formality, a discussion before making any such change, then fair enough - this is that discussion, let's discuss. 95.150.101.50 (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not enough to be a member of two notable bands, the person needs to be a reasonably prominent member of at least two notable bands, for the guideline to indicate that a person may be notable. The original wording of the sentence is correct. In general, WP:GNG should hold for subjects of articles. LK (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with LK. wp:gng provides a good guide for those North8000 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this, as the edit appeared to be in conjunction with this one here. While Mr. Tibbs might indeed be a notable musician, WP:GNG should be the guideline here, especially with regards to sources. That he played bass in two notable bands is not sufficient in this case. Karst (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't in conjuction at all - I'd made that edit just earlier and included the WP:BAND link in the edit summary and clicked on it to test it and then noticed the recently addedtext. I had no problem with the rule, I just thought it could be expressed better in the light of Criterion #6 to get the basic principle across - two or more bands > Notability (and possibly Article,) just the one band > Redirect.

However, since the subject of "Reasonably Prominent Members" has been dragged into this, perhaps I should draw your attention to the attached note 5 which is absolutely clearcut and specific about what does/doesn't count as Reasonable Prominence: "Generally speaking, in a small ensemble, all people are reasonably-prominent, but, for example, being members of the chorus (not prominent) in two Broadway musicals (dozens of people involved) usually wouldn't be enough." Bearing this in mind, about the only Wiki-notable rock/pop band I can think of offhand where simple membership wouldn't be enough to count towards someone's two or more notable bands would be The Polyphonic Spree! Or maybe if The Pukes ever get a Wikipedia article then that will be a second example. (For what it's worth, there were six people in Roxy Music during Tibbs' time with the band and five people in Adam and the Ants during his time there. Bigger than the rock/pop standard of four members, but both still just about within the boundaries of small ensemble as per most rock/pop acts.) 95.150.101.50 (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it is sufficient, and is a good reason notability is not a policy. Bob Smith plays in notable band A, doesn't get enough independent RS coverage of him to be notable apart from the band, then joins notable band B, and STILL doesn't get enough independent RS coverage to render him notable apart from the band. So, what do we do with Bob Smith?

• Delete his article (Meh. He's a reasonable search term)
• Redirect him to band A because it was his first band and...
  • Not cover band B, because discussing band B in band A's article is a WP:COATRACK
  • Cover band B, because it's important to discussing Bob Smith's career and there's nowhere else to put it.
• Redirect him to band B because it is his latest band and...
  • Not cover band A, because discussing band A in band B's article is a WP:COATRACK
  • Cover band A, because it's important to discussing Bob Smith's career and there's nowhere else to put it.
• Or just put up a minimalist, verifiable article, even if it's not notable, discussing both Bob's bands and linking to the notable acts with which he has been associated.

Obviously, I prefer the final option as the least bad one. Note that the criteria has been around for a decade or more. Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative you forgot to mention: Delete on WP:XY grounds, and allow his prospects as a search term to be carried by the fact that since his name is in both articles, both bands will come up in the page of results one would get for searching on it. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Producers

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.

---

How do we determine a producers notability? I assume that it would come under or be along the same lines as "Criteria for composers and lyricists." It is a difficult one to explain, as the roles of a producer vary and may also include writing and composition (especially in hip hop). The page for music producer needs a lot of work. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If the producer has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the producer, it is presumed that the producer is suitable for a stand-alone article or list. See WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Why are producers treated separately from composers, lyricists, etc.? Bobbybobbie (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

They are not. Songwriters and other musicians have special criteria, but if if that individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed that the subject is not suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Having a charting song, playing in an important band, etc. all hint at general notability, but the sources are still needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: So, if a producer has had multiple charting songs - it points to general notability? Bobbybobbie (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In regards to significant coverage, it's a little confusing, as these individuals are not always the subject of mass media (as outlined in "Others"). The "others" section mentions publications, when part of the reason the section seems to exist is the subject's lack of publicity.

For example, if you were to categorize a Grammy winning producer, with little to no publicity, would they be included within page of each song produced, or have a stand alone article outlining their individual works and achievements? Bobbybobbie (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My point exactly. Producers are generally not notable, even those with multiple Grammy awards behind their name. Producers who are notable are generally ones who create new sounds such as Phil Spector, George Martin and Robert John "Mutt" Lange. Look at those articles to see what is written about notable producers. You will also see various producer categories linked to those articles. See what kinds of articles are linked to those cats. Oh, and no need to ping me as this article is on my watchlist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

How would you suggest listing an individual and/or their work who fits the music notability criteria (production/writing), but does not have significant coverage? There are stand alone articles for such cases, but there doesn't seem to be any real consistency. Bobbybobbie (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say that songwriters, composers, and producers are generally not perceived as being notable, due to the lack of public exposure (behind the artist/band). Bobbybobbie (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... This contradicts the "others" category. Bobbybobbie (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If they don't meet GNG, I would not try to list them at all. But I'm not the only editor watching here. Others are welcome to comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Broadly there are at least two schools of thought on the relationship between the general notability guidelines and the specific criteria given for e.g. musicians and writers; these might be simplified as the "both/and" school (often followed by deletionists) and the "either/or" school (which may attract more inclusionists). In any domain of biography, you can find AfD decisions that follow either of the two principles: that independent coverage of notability is separately required, or that meeting the specific criteria is sufficient. Some of the criteria use terms such as "presumed to be notable", which is stronger than the "may be notable" used in music; the specific criteria will generally say that either one or the other must be met, but editors when justifying their votes will sometimes say, yes, but these are "just guidelines".

Regardless of all that, though, there must be reliable sources to verify that the subject does indeed meet special criteria such as those set out in WP:NMUSIC other, which may be more difficult for largely behind the scenes roles such as producers. The difference between "both/and" and "either/or" in this case hinges on whether the RSs are required to assert the notability of the subject (a fairly high bar) or only to document that the subject does in fact meet the specific criteria (a lower bar). Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: There are clearly inclusionists and deletionists but despite the fact that on some notability pages it says and/or, eg WP:NSPORTS it also says just under that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept" and here there is a section "Applicable policies and guidelines" here where you can read the following " In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." I'd be interested to know if you have seen any that have the and/or phrase without this kind of explanation. WP:NBOOK for example doesn't have this but its criteria are as strict as GNG as there has to be at the very least 2 non trivial reviews or other criteria that go beyond GNG conditions. WP:NPEOPLE clearly states GNG and. WP:NORG is strict as well, WP:NEVENT is stricter WP:NGEO is stricter. Domdeparis (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The key phrases are actually in WP:GNG itself:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right (emphasis added); and

It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

The discussion of what "presumed" means, later in the policy, specifies WP:NOT as the main case in which a topic/subject presumed to be notable might not actually justify an independent article.

The other key criterion, in my view, is discussed in Why we have these requirements:

We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

This requirement can be difficult to meet for some topics that are otherwise notable per a WP:SNG.

Some of the special criteria definitely do not rely on the general notability guidelines in their standard interpretation. For example, WP:PROF is quite explicit on this point:

It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant. (emphasis added)

What I take from this is that, in general, the either/or reading is closer to what is intended in both the WP:GNG and in the WP:SNGs in general. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I forgot that one! As far I can see it may be the only one though as the others refer to GNG or are stricter. Domdeparis (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether they are stricter, though, is to me a matter of perspective. For example, WP:CREATIVE seems clear to me in establishing that authorship of a notable work is sufficient to establish the notability of its author/creator regardless of WP:BASIC, so long as the work has been subject to multiple, independent reviews. This would be a lower bar than some interpretations of WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS seems to me to be the outlier in explicitly claiming a "both/and" requirement. Many of the others give a "presumption of notability" in the same manner as, though less declaratory language than, WP:PROF. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, Domdeparis, you previously cited WP:NORG as strict, but that is not unequivocally the case. For example, see WP:SCHOOLS

All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. (emphasis added)

The owls are not what they seem. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to approach the question from a functional point of view. Although it is unlikely that many people will arrive at a producer's page as a search term, the album info box includes the producer, wikilinked when a page exists. I would therefore propose a practical policy that a producer is notable if they are named on two or more albums with their own pages (or perhaps album pages of more than two artists). In most cases the producer page would be a minimal biography and a consolidated list of albums they worked on. Martinlc (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly a good logic to that proposal, Martinlc. It follows mutatis mutandis the approach set out in WP:CREATIVE for creative personnel in other domains, notably film, while restricting mention to those who produced multiple works (it seems to me that it isn't necessary to restrict producer pages to those who are linked from albums of multiple artists). Of course, some producers are actually famous and therefore indisputably notable in their own right, but that isn't the challenging case. Newimpartial (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That makes little sense. Some bands use the same producer, but that producer may not be notable. If there's not enough information for a bio, backed with reliable sources, then the producer does not need an article. That's the minimum criteria. Whether they produced one or four thousand albums isn't an issue. It's whether we can have more than, "Martin Smith is a producer who has worked on two albums by the Nobodys." Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that reliable source information is needed to make even a stub article with "tombstone" information worthwhile. I understood Martinlc's proposal as essentially pointing out the effective criteria for a producer's notability (multiple notable albums). They did say "minimal biography" which implies some kind of sourced information. Otherwise we run afoul of that point from WP:WHYN, "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources". Newimpartial (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason I initially asked this question was due to the purposed deletion of a page I created here. The producers are clearly notable for producing, writing, and composing multiple platinum and gold selling songs/albums. These works have all been featured at major events, on best selling video games, and television shows. The producers have even been credited on the cover of their works and mentioned in the song/album info box of each page (before I had created the page).

Producers, writers, composers, etc. are generally not the face of such projects - and not necessarily subject to mass media (even though they may have arguably done the bulk of the work); therefore it is unlikely that they would be subject to the same definition/guidelines of notability that is set out in other articles. This is why we have specific guidelines in place for each topic. The idea that somebody such as Grammy award winning producer is not notable due to the fact that they don't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines is simply incomprehensible.

Regardless of what happens to this article, I hope that it can contribute greatly to the improvement of the music notability and all other related guidelines. Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of fair play I will point out that N4 as a group are subject to WP:NORG which is essentially somewhat tougher than WP:NBIO; the notability of a group that acts as a producer is a bit harder to establish than the notability of an individual who acts as a producer, which is already not entirely straightforward. Newimpartial (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The article states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more specific purposes may be governed by more specific guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC." If this were the case, it would then imply that bands are also subject to WP:NORG.
I am not too worried about that at the moment. I just hope that the notability guidelines for producers etc. can be clarified - for all. It does seem to be very complex. Bobbybobbie (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I get that bands (and possibly producers) are WP:MUSIC; I am just pointing to the different underlying expectations of orgs and people, where notability may be harder to establish for orgs.

I wasn't going to address N4 in detail, but the main problem that strikes me about the article is the lack of significant RS coverage. The mention in The Source is entirely in passing, and there is a lot of self-published material in the reference list; Billboard is alright to document charting, but as has been pointed out previously, there isn't much point to an article where the only sourced statements amount to a list of credits. Even one independent secondary source that said something substantial about N4 might make a difference to the fate of the article. Newimpartial (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In regards to N4, I have listed this article by Vice. It is argued that interviews are primary sources, but they can also be considered secondary sources. Most of the articles that I have found for people of this category seem to include some form of interview. You are right about the self published work, there are a lot of secondary sources that can be added to this article.

My main question for now is - by compiling all of the necessary definitions/guidelines, can we create a more clearly defined guide in WP:MUSIC for the categories that relate to producers, composers, writers, etc.? Bobbybobbie (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I understand, the criteria in WP:MUSIC can be combined with the criteria in WP:BIO (here), as they are (very closely) related topics. There doesn't seem to be any requirement for WP:GNG. I guess that is why these specific guidelines were created to begin with. There are just too many variables when it comes to the definitions and criteria for subject specific notability. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

GNG is the parent. All of the specific notability criteria are simply hints as to how a subject may meet GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be what a lot of people say; however, at the beginning of WP:N (the article W:GNG is within), it states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (The box has WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO inside of it.)

Where on Wikipedia does it state that WP:GNG applies to WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO? It seems to be a widespread assumption. I would say that if it doesn't fit the subject-specific guidelines - WP:GNG applies. Bobbybobbie (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You've read it here multiple times. Without sources (GNG) it doesn't matter what a subject-specific guideline lists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you show me where it says that? I'm not trying to be rude, but I've just shown you where it says the opposite. Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

While it is required to have sources, per these requirements, the subject-specific guidelines do offer the possibility of a pass from WP:BASIC. I think the two of you may be talking past each other here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This discussion might reasonably be informed by the closure of a recent RFC on NSPORTS. I would suggest that NMUSIC does not allow a free pass for any person, group, or organization, where NMUSIC is seen to be more inclusive, rather than less. Much of what I'm seeing above in this discussion (and potentially in the guideline at present) probably falls more on the side of "more" rather than "less" inclusive, so I might suggest some caution. --Izno (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

But WP:NSPORTS by its own language sets a high "both/and" bar for personal notability, while WP:PROFis just as definitely "either/or". WP:MUSIC is pretty clearly in between. Edit: I'm not suggesting that there is a "free pass, but by the wording of the WP:GNG themselves, there is a pass from WP:BASIC so long as independent sourcing is available and the subject-specific criteria are met. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, Newimpartial. The definitions and requirements for notability are completely different for a producer (in this case) to that of an athlete. Completely different occupation - not to mention that an athlete is obviously subject to a far greater level of exposure. Bobbybobbie (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The various sport guidelines have been a problem since their inception. It was one contributing reason for me leaving the football project. For instance, they place a British and European understanding on the guidelines where a fourth-division team is considered notable. The project then rallies around any fourth-division team nominated for deletion as it passes their criteria despite not having a single RS or only having coverage in local (read: community) papers. It's a similar situation here. There are clearly many notable producers. There are many more non-notable producers. Some of those non-notable producers may have a hand in a highly notable recording. However, if publications don't think enough of the producer to write about that producer, then neither should we. If the producer doesn't want publicity and hence does not grant access to publications, then we should extend that courtesy to the person and not have an article about that producer. Either way, GNG really trumps anything. And since there isn't a WP:NPRODUCER criteria (which, if it were created, would apply to all production staff including audio engineers, mixers and those who master the albums) we're only left with GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, so you are saying that song writers are more notable than producers? Bobbybobbie (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict - this is a reply to Walter. It seems to me that we are not completely thrown back on the WP:GNG, as there is relevant guidance to be had in both the "other" section of WP:MUSIC and in the discussion of film producers in WP:CREATIVE. The relevant critrria, as I see them, are that the creator must have made a significant contribution to the creation of a notable work, and that there must be some kind of independent reliable secondary source verifying that the contributor in question (in this case, a producer) actually did so.

And, Bobbiedobbie, please don't bait the witness. You are coming across to me as hostile to Walter, which can't help. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The above statement by @Newimpartial: is 100 percent correct. I didn't mean to bait him - I was actually trying to understand his logic. Bobbybobbie (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ignore the language in the guidelines and policies for a moment--the sentiment expressed in the RFC is what is important, namely the first bullet of the conclusion: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports), is a replacement for, nor supercedes, the general notability guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. [edited for grammar] It doesn't matter if there is and/or/either or some mix of the above, or some language (apparently in N itself) which apparently loosens the requirement for notability—what matters is that your article meets the GNG. Now, whether the closers mean what they said might be a reasonable question to ask, but as it stands presently, that means that an SNG should show the path to meeting the GNG, not prescribe its own way to notability. A number of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC appear to me to do exactly the latter... Really, they shouldn't be "criteria" but instead "indicators of potential"; where if potential of a topic is not met with reality as required by the GNG, the article should either be merged or deleted. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My response to that, Izno, is that until I see mass deletions of the Prof articles that meet WP:PROF but not WP:GNG, I am not likely to agree that an RFC on N:SPORTS applies to all the other notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:NGEO or WP:SCHOOL.

I don't think such a universal formula is even possible; the root of the sports problem as I see it is that extensive media coverage creates an absurdly low bar for notability in that domain, so additional criteria are required. Something similar is true for WP:GARAGE issues. In other areas, though, like academia or contemporary poetry, other criteria apply. I do not see how this situation can, or should, change - you are never going to get the extent of coverage for poets that you get for quarterbacks, but it would be rather unencyclopaedic to exclude them in the name of uniformity. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as that RfC is concerned, it features a really terrible non-admin close that introduces measures which were never discussed in the RfC itself. Followed literally, it would gut WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE and WP:SCHOOLS to solve a problem with WP:FOOTY - a problem which would have been solved ifor people were reading WP:NSPORTS correctly in the first place. So I trust that this foolishness will not be followed to its logical conclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a class, yes. Songwriters are generally written about more often than producers. More special attention is paid to songwriters than to producers. Any individual songwriter may not be more notable than any individual producer.

And yes, we are thrown back to GNG. Always. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you never presented any evidence for any of your claims. Bobbybobbie (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Walter, see my reply to Izno above for why I don't believe this is the case. I understand there is a wave of GNG fundamentalism going on, but the SNGs were developed for good, encyclopaedic reasons and I believe for that reason that the tide will recede. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nor will I. Nor do I need to. The fact that songwriters are generally written about more often than producers can be seen in any trade magazine. I defy you to find more than one feature article in Billboard, Spin, Rolling Stone, etc. that focuses on a producer in any given edition. Most album reviews don't even mention the role of the producer. Check the reviews on AllMusic for instance. Is that an oversight? Who cares? We're not discussing justice for producers, but whether they are written about. Care to show some feature articles on producers? Care to show book-length works on producers? I see now how Newimpartial might interpret your actions as hostile toward me.

That we are beholden to GNG is seen in the community consensus in the village pump discussion addressed above. I suspect that line in N will be removed, or at least modified, shortly, so don't hold to it to closely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I am looking at the long haul, Walter. I know how the wind is blowing today. So why don't you start to AfD those PROF articles, already. :p Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated one over the past year. That's enough for me as that subject doesn't impact my life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I am not arguing that one is more important than that other. There are articles written on both.

In the case of hip hop, the producer is generally given more credit than the writer(s). Songs will often show, "produced by _______", and there may be no mention of any writer(s). Please see my own example here and another example here.

The role of a "producer" has certainly evolved over time, and they are often included in the writing and composition of songs (they are ultimately credited for both). If you would like to read more, there are a couple of examples here and here. I just used hip hop as an example; the same definition of producer also exists in most styles of electronic music. I understand that with bands - it may be a little different, but I am not too sure of this. Bobbybobbie (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment-- And I'm happily chiming in here!Here are my takes on the issues:---Winged Blades ^Godric 10:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)}}
• 1)Our policies often contradict each other to the point of seeming that they plainly oppose one another-:--

While subject specific notability guidelines often carry a banner at the top highlighting that they alone do not make a subject-encycloepadic worthy and is secondary to a god-father like General notability guideline, when one lands up at WP:GNG, he/she is greeted with--A subject is encycloepadic iff It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline.

As to the cases, where the contradiction become a major pot-stirrer, the community has generally expected, that the editors will generally manage to form a article-specific consensus.The proceedings in the last few months--several DRV's, two RFC's on the topic and numerous talk page discussions--show that the expectation fails to hold-up often.It is not faulty to expect that as the editing base grows more diverse and large, the magnitude of problems on these issues will also rise.

• • Why the SNG's were created?

1)It is a fact that cannot be but accepted that coverage of media is biased towards certain spheres and setting the same standards of inclusion for fields like athletics and academics will lead to an athletopedia!--This lead to the development of WP:NPROF etc.

2)It was once presumed that barring some exceptions, those subjects which meets the WP:SNG will be able to meet WP:GNG.It was some sort of a quick-pass criterion to prevent an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources may be available, given sufficient time to locate them.This lead to the development of WP:NSPORTS, WP:ORG etc.

• • What's the current status:-

1)As is currently found, the number of subjections that were categorised under the exceptions in the previous viewpoint--have far exceeded.

2)The recent RFCs have shown a trend that the general consensus is against the invocation of SNG in fields of Sports, Schools etc.But, I at the same time don't support the closure of the last RFC which brought the ambit of non-applicability of SNGs over every field!

• • With respect to the the issue on hand:-

1)Summarily:--As to any topic for which SNG is absent, WP:GNG supercedes.The same is the case for WP:NPRODUCER.

2)The most-nearest SNG is WP:NMUSIC.It sorta bypass WP:GNG.But to notice carefully, everywhere it mentions, that--X,Y,Z etc. may be notable if......WP:NFILM also falls in this category.

3)In contrast, WP:NORG clearly states that meeting either the SNG or GNG is sufficient.But the essence and features of WP:GNG is pretty much evident in WP:ORG. WP:NBOOKS also states that meeting either the SNG or GNG is sufficient.But in my opinion, the SNG here is stricter than WP:GNG.

4)Thus with regards to he notability guideline for producers--I prefer WP:GNG be the standard--esp. when none had been created.If there is a real problem as to that in Academics etc. we need some sort of a RFC.But, please don't create another one of the half-baked types of WP:NSPORTS etc. which betrays thwe editor more often than it helps!

@Martinlc: Did you mean something like this? Bobbybobbie (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I think the GNG guidance works slightly strangely for people in the music industry because there is usually more information about people's works than their lives, an those works usually have their own pages. (In contrast, a poet, say, would usually have only a BLP article which included a list of, and perhaps a summary of, their works). Also most of the information about works is derived from their self-descriptions, not independent sources. Martinlc (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You are a genius. Bobbybobbie (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not very strange at all. It's the same in the video game industry—almost never are individuals notable, and for quite a few of the entities (usually companies) producing video games are not notable, even though their products are. --Izno (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Music is a little different to video games. A single video game might have over 100 people working on it, the same goes for computer animated films, cartoons, etc. Some video game developers and publishers do a poor job of marketing themselves... Companies such as EA, Rockstar, Capcom, Bandai Namco Studios, and Konami do an excellent job of creating brand awareness. I still remember a lot of their intros. :) Bobbybobbie (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A video game has one product manager. That equates to the producer. Name a notable product manager.

A video game has multiple coders, testers, graphic artists, story editors, etc. A recording has multiple audio engineers and musicians. These are not always notable.

How can we tell notability? WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you can directly compare a music producer to a video game producer, or even a film producer - it's all subjective.

Rather than compare music to other topics, it is better to determine which roles are notable - within the field of music. Personally, I think producers and engineers should be added to the WP:NMUSIC article. If The Recording Academy deems them notable enough to receive Grammy awards - what else is there to say? Bobbybobbie (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You absolutely can--they are individuals involved with the development of a creative work, but are neither the work, nor the overseeing organization, nor the "frontman"--all of which usually have quite a bit written about them in reliable sources. Most producers don't have anything written about them—and if so, that means we shouldn't have anything written about them, even if certain organizations engage in the practice of awarding "the people behind the scenes", a practice almost guaranteed to be more about how well the final product was produced and not an actual analysis and understanding of the conditions under which that creative work was produced. --Izno (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Overseeing organization? I don't think you understand what a music producer actually does.

If anything, you could compare a producer to a film director, but it is still a little different. Please take a look at this. Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Not all directors are notable either. What's your point? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said, "all directors are notable." Bobbybobbie (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I think his point is that if the information does not exist in WP:RS, then it simply doesn't exist, and this applies to both trades. Yes, we absolutely could have the same kind of articles about music producers as we do for, say, film directors, but the simple truth is that they're a lot less visible and therefore more mysterious to us because of how few actually manage to have much published about them. It's so difficult to make a living as a music producer that only the top few dozen or so actually get to do it exclusively for a living; I think 99.99% of music producers still also work day jobs because it's just so hard to do exclusively. As for what you're saying about expanding WP:NMUSIC to encompass producers as well, the thing is that not all producers take such an active role in the process. It's especially uncommon, at least nowadays, for them to do so in rock and metal music. It happens all the time in pop music, of course, but it's rarer in other genres, especially the more niche ones. I'm sure not all producers are musicians either, let alone contributing to the songwriting/actual recording process such that they are playing instruments on the finished product. Your fallback should probably be WP:NPEOPLE, but at all times defer to WP:GNG. Music producers can and do take the active role in music recording that you imply, but it's a different role from that of the performers on the record; only when the producer actually performs on the track should the producer be considered a performer proper, but across genres the rate at which producers do so is all over the map. It's therefore pretty much impossible for us to apply a one-size-fits-all solution like what you're looking for. As it stands, there is really nothing to change about existing notability policy - the best we can say is that if WP:RS say enough about someone, then go for it. That applies to everyone - game developers, dancers, film directors, novelists, and of course music producers. That's the best we can do. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 13:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I know of several full-time producers who make a good living and have been at it for decades who don't have any notability. Now thinking of one in particular, some of his albums he has worked on have received awards. The artists get written-up, and they may mention him, but he doesn't get write-ups. And yes, that's what I was implying. The ones I know of who are now full-time producers were notable musicians and they have articles because of that, not their production work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2017 (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.

GNG and subject-specific notability guidelines

Just to notify you all about one discussion closed as partially saying that no subject-specific notability guideline may supersede or replace GNG, though possibly GNG is not a hard-and-fast rule. How would the decision affect the music-specific notability guideline? --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh... Already discussed in #Producers then... --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about criteria #10 and #7

I have a question about these criteria as they relate to cases such as Future World Music, a musical group/producer that specializes in trailer music.

WP:MUSIC#C10 says: "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." It seems to me that for the genre of trailer music (composed specifically for use in film trailers), a composition that is featured in the trailer for a notable film fulfills this criteria.

The parenthetical to C10 says: "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)"—which is reasonable, with my understanding that a music trailer group that has music featured in multiple trailers of different notable movies would thus have more than one claim.

So, what are your thoughts on this issue? If this doesn't seem like a reasonable interpretation to you, how else may a musical group within the limited genre of trailer music establish notability?

I'm also considering WP:MUSIC#C7: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style..." It seems to me that being featured in multiple trailers for notable films establishes such a group's prominence within that genre. (As well as this group being among three groups mentioned in a cited LA Times article about the genre.) And for Future World Music, C7's continuation: "note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." would seem to be already covered by the sources on that article.

I am aware that the article also has problems with too much of a corporate focus, making it appear like somewhat of an advertisement. I have plans to rewrite the article away from that appearance, but is shifting the focus to meet the above notability guidelines likely to have any positive effect? Many of the current AfD voters have not found my comments along these lines to be convincing. (Note: I have no personal connection to this article. I first ran across it only this month, and saw the AfD warning.) —pfahlstrom (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's only assumed that they're notable if they meet the criteria. Is there any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If not, delete the article until such exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I judge that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Other voters deem it to be only a passing reference. To me, an article in the LA Times about the subject of trailer music, by a reporter who has no connection to the industry, who features this particular music production group as one of three she talks about, looks like significant coverage rather than a passing reference. But that appears to be a much more basic question than the one I'm asking about these two specific criteria. —pfahlstrom (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

One report is not significant coverage and it's only one source, not sources. See what GNG states about that particular phrase. It doesn't matter who that one author was. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

And what are you talking about "no connection to the industry"? That's either a very narrow view of the industry as Emily Rome writes about the film industry, and that's the industry that these musicians work in, or you have no clue what industry the subject writes in and the musicians are members of. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are making, Walter. I thought the question of "connection to the industry" was in relation to "independence of the subject". Are you suggesting that Emily Rome has a COI with respect to trailer music? Newimpartial (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not suggesting a COI. I simply stated that the writer is a film industry writer and blogger, which leaves me confused as to who you consider "the industry" is here. Are you calling Future World Music "the industry" here? So they're not a band and instead they're an industry?

Regardless, one report is not sources. In my non-vote on the AfD page, I alluded to that.

So what I'm saying is that we significant coverage in a single reliable source that is independent of the subject, but that's not enough to meet GNG. No. 7 (Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city) has not been met because the film music industry is not a local scene, and the note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards is obviously not met. And No. 10 (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.) has not been met either because they are not performing in the film, but rather they are performing for or in the background of the film. There's also a pretty big caveat for that item as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

My responses moved to the bottom. —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to how to apply GNG here. We seem to have a few users who conflate deserving to have coverage that satisfies the requirements for GNG and NMUSIC with actually having such coverage, as if what little coverage does exist is sufficient because of the subject's prominence. Prominent and notable though the subject may be, the question remains, what can Wikipedia say about it? Would anyone read an article on a notable subject that has almost no information or imparts no real knowledge to the reader? An article that's almost empty or pumped with filler? There are perhaps other ways of integrating such subjects into Wikipedia - e.g. noting that an artist performed music for a particular film's trailer on that film's Wikipedia article and possibly leaving a WP:REDLINK to note that we've given serious consideration to creating such an article (that does strike me as a bit crystalline though since that's us more or less trying to foretell a subject's possible notability). There is still a way to cover this information - a dedicated article is not always necessary nor welcome. There is always the possibility that the presence of the subject in reliable third-party sources can change for the better, but that doesn't mean what is already available is adequate right now. By the sound of it, all we really know about this subject is specific projects they've been involved in, but nothing outside of it, so it would just read as a list of things this entity has done for their career. An article like that doesn't need to exist; it can, as I said before, be spread across the different articles for the projects with which this entity was involved. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps something else to consider - what impact has this entity actually had? Say they've composed theme music for the movie Foo. Why should we care that they did so? Did someone listen to this music and decide to do something significant inspired by it, or is "This exists and this entity is the reason why" the most Wikipedia can say about it? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

(Responding to parts of the larger post above.) You suggest "noting that an artist performed music for a particular film's trailer on that film's Wikipedia article" and indeed, that is precisely what the caveat to NMUSIC#C10 suggests: "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. ...)" If Future World Music's trailer music appeared in only one trailer for a notable film, then yes, adding it to that film's article and redirecting would be appropriate. The issue here is that their music has appeared in quite a few trailers for notable films, so it is not "the only claim"—it's multiple claims. Obviously a redirect can't point to multiple articles.

As for whether someone would want to read a Wikipedia article that ends up mostly being a discography list and mentioning what trailers their music appeared in, the answer is yes. That's how I discovered the Future World Music article in the first place, at the beginning of this month. I have a movie soundtrack Pandora station, and one of their songs came up, so I looked them up on Wikipedia. The article told me exactly what I wanted to know. But overall, the questions I'm asking are about whether #C7 and #C10 joined together with the Emily Rome articles may be sufficient to already establish notability to have a Wikipedia article—not at some undetermined future time. Walter Görlitz suggests above that #C7 and #C10 are not met, but he does so by focusing on different sections of each criterion than I'm focusing on. —pfahlstrom (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not just me. The article is about to be deleted because the community believes this. The solution: adjust what you're focusing on to read it like the rest of the community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, though, Walter, by "the rest of the community" you mean the predominant view of most current participants in XfD discussions. While your statement is accurate, the current view has not always been predominant and may not remain so. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

To be fair though Newimpartial I mean everyone except you. Keep trying to convince us that this needs to change but don't state it as fact, as you have been doing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It isn't "everyone except me", though. I could submit a dozen diffs of other editors making arguments in XfD discussions that counter the view of "the rest of the community" as you present it. The fact remains, though, that the view I am espousing is currently a minority view. It was not always a minority view; that is a matter of fact, which would be easy to demonstrate. I am not currently making the argument that it needs to change now for reasons; I am merely signalling the hope that it will do so.

The sketch of my argument, which I presented in the Producer discussion, way above, is that it is absurd to treat the sourcing for the WP:GNG as if it worked in the same way for athletes as for poets as for bands as for places, and in fact this application of the concept of Notability was not entertained at the time the GNG and then the SNGs were developed. I have seen an argument made that a particular formerly incorporated settlement was not notable because the only readily available source for its notability was an offline local newspaper, which is precisely the kind of argument that WP:GEOLAND is intended to pre-empt, and a case where WP:5P1 should be expected to inform and/or trump the GNG. Indeed, I would say that in general encyclopaedicity ought to trump wikilawyering over the GNG, which is the reason for my long-term optimism about the direction of the pendulum.

Being a realist, though, I fully realize that my "argument" will not "prevail" as a result of a discussion on this talk page, and probably only has the hope of seeing fruition in the longue durée. Newimpartial (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The limited sourcing is crucial to establishing notability in part because we're trying to avoid WP:SINGLESOURCE articles. If I may ask, what was the land case you're referring to, and how did it turn out in the discussion? And what exactly about the Five Pillars should have impacted the discussion? I need more context for your example or else I can't see its relevance to this situation. I also don't understand how the GNG was interpreted differently at the time it was conceived - my understanding of it is that it works the same for all topic areas, but impact and notability just have to be demonstrated in different ways. For example, athletes don't always have a distinctive style to the way they do things that inspires others who admire them and want the same kind of career, but such athletes may instead have contributed to community causes, enabled research on important topics, or have set important milestone records in their careers. Musicians would demonstrate the exact same notability in different ways - some never even had high-charting hit music, but left an important impression on those who came afterwards. That's my interpretation of GNG and all its subpolicies, and I don't see how this couldn't have been the understanding we've had about them since the beginning nor how these are applied in fundamentally different ways - the fundamentals are the same in both of the hypothetical cases I presented. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To be a bit clearer, I think places per WP:GEOLAND are given a much looser interpretation of GNG because of the impact a settlement, even a really minor forgettable one, is assumed to have had on human history by default. It's a marker of where humanity has been and how far man has gotten. That still fits with what I said earlier, though, and again I don't see the relevance of bringing that up unless the viewpoint you said someone had in that discussion were shared to the extent that it got the article in question deleted. And let's be clear here - a place is not the same thing as a person, and music producers are much closer to performers as well as athletes than they are to places. It's very much apples and pineapples. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I said nothing about redirects because I don't think there need to be any of those either. The keyword in C10 is "probably", which says this is a possible alternative. However, implicitly, it's not the only one. If someone wants to know about the artist but we have neither an article nor even a redirect for said artist, the reader can easily search Wikipedia using the standard search engine and see a list of articles pop up. I might even suggest a category, but I don't know that it would be WP:DEFINING enough for each movie. Nevertheless, having a dedicated page of any sort is not always appropriate or even desirable.

Multiple claims of the same thing is still the same basic claim. Therefore, it's basically one thing restated multiple times. Having a broad body of work is not the same thing as having a notable body of work. Whether mentions of this entity are confined to three articles or spread across a thousand, the key is that an article on the entity in question would be able to say, "This entity is known for having X cultural impact." For example, being known for a particular style of music that has explicitly been said to motivate ticket sales for movies. If this entity does not appear to have made any real difference for having been there or done anything, we can't really have an article on it. That's all there is to it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, Zeke, I wasn't intending to engage with you, but I guess I will, so that you are at least clear on what I am saying. I can't track down exactly what the GEOLAND XfD discussion was, because I didn't participate in it, but I do remember people in that discussion pointing out that the presumption of notability for formerly incorporated places should apply in the particular case.

Where I am primarily disagreeing with you, I think?, is with the elision you seem to be making between avoidance of singlesource articles - which I have consistently recognized, here and elsewhere, to be an important principle - and the need for multiple RS's actually making a claim of notability on behalf of the subject. It seems to me that a lot of the work in the SNG criteria consists in defining thresholds of significance which may be located "above" or "below" the threshold of "multiple RSs claiming notability". So in the case of WP:CREATIVE, criterion 3 presumes notability for the creator when the created work is demonstrably significant, in the face of WP:NOTINHERIT, even if the RSs concentrate on the work rather than the creator. In the case of GEOLAND, formerly incorporated places are deemed notable whether or not there is an explict claim of notability in an available RS. In the former case, John Landis is considered significant whether or not any critic has ever claimed that he had "X cultural impact" as a director. Related to the latter, the Greater London Council would have been deemed significant even before the publication of Local Government from Thatcher to Blair.

It seems to me that the presumptions contained in both of these guidelines, and also in WP:SCHOOLS and WP:PROF for instance, are intended to create more consistent and more encyclopaedic standards for notability than would be achieved by a series of individual skirmishes in AfD discussions based on the sources found by involved editors at a particular time. Similiarly, in other cases such as WP:SOLDIER and WP:NSPORTS, it has been necessary to create consistency at a "higher" standard because of the abundance of documentation for relatively mundane figures.

Wikipedia should certainly not carry single-sourced articles, but just as certainly it can carry articles which, while properly sourced, rely for their significance on a logic other than "this reliable source says X had Y impact". For example, for all its faults, the 11th edition Britannica would have been a much poorer document if it had used such an editorial criterion. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe the subject passes Item 3 in WP:CREATIVE because while the trailer and whatever's in it obviously qualify as a work, neither the trailer nor their components are currently justified in being notable themselves. The "work", as I believe the context indicates in that guideline, is not the trailer nor anything in it, but what the trailer and its components seek to promote. Indicating the existence of the trailer and what's in it on the article for the film which the trailer promotes is one thing, but not the same as acknowledging notability. It may be a prominent part of a notable subject, but that doesn't make it a notable subject unto itself. I think the GEOLAND situation, to name one of the examples you used, is very different because it does not depend on the prior existence of a notable subject the same way a trailer or its components would.

Having said that, it seems to me there is also confusion as to what qualifies as a notable work, not merely who passes as a notable performer or composer. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that I am not disagreeing with you about the case, Zeke. I am not, for example, arguing that trailers are (or can be) notable works, nor am I venturing an opinion about whether "Trailer music" is a genre in the sense of WP:MUSIC (other). I was only taking issue with the logic of your position, expressed in your reply to me, above. Newimpartial (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think your objections can be distilled into one question: "Why do we consider such unimportant geographical places to be notable but not this team of trailer music producers?" Am I correct in assuming that? It sounds to me that you take issue with treating these two topics radically differently then claiming such treatment is a consistent application of Wikipedia's concept of notability. It's a valid concern provided it's well-founded, and I'm not saying it is or isn't yet. But am I correct to restate your point as such? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, I actually agree that trailers and their components, as well as those who created them, can be notable, I just don't believe the case in point has proven to be yet. As far as your "genre" comment, and having looked at the "Others" section on that page, I don't think trailer music quite qualifies as its own genre in the context of these guidelines - trailer music can be orchestral, it can be techno, it can be rock, or anything else. I certainly think it could fulfill the first item on that five-point list, and that's sufficient for establishing notability according to that very same section. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 06:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

On the distillation of my point, it is really more like "if we bend the GNG for places, for reasons of encyclopaedicity, aren't there other cases where we also bend the GNG for similar reasons?" The logic of this is precisely not that we should bend the GNG for everybody, or specifically for trailer music creators, but more to resist a sort of GNG fundamentalism that has cropped up in the last 6-7 years or so, that takes the (very good) requirement for multiple sources and turns it into the (non-generalizable) requirement for multiple sources that assert a subject's notability. The latter simply isn't appropriate for places, or for poets, or for film producers. WP:MUSIC - other is another SNG that is intended to protect the notability within niche genres, so that we don't require WSJ or Guardian reviews to establish the notability of Asian metal bands. But I am completely agnostic about the application of these principles to the specific case of trailer music. :) Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Walter, responding to what you said farther up:

• C#10 says "Has performed music for a film" yet you say "for" is not enough, it must be "in." The "in" phrasing is only in a listed example of how to meet the "for," it is not the only way to do it. "for" is indeed met by having the music playing in the background—that is where most music appears, in media that has a video component. As for the caveat, I already addressed that: it's not the only example if there are multiple examples for different trailers.
• C#7 likewise says "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene": you can't ignore the first part because it doesn't meet the second part. I'm saying it's a prominent representative of a notable style, not a local scene. The style in question here is trailer music, which is established to be of sufficient notability to have its own article.
• And by "no connection to the industry" I meant that the industry doesn't pay Emily Rome's bills, the news organizations pay her bills, as far as I could see, so there is no COI. And specifically, the industry I was thinking of was trailer music production, not the broader film industry. If we say that reporters are not allowed to specialize in their type of coverage without being connected too much to an industry, we'd be disqualifying a ton of news coverage. If a reporter specializes in political coverage, are all of their articles on political issues no longer reliable sources?
• The LA Times coverage is the most significant for this particular article, but there are also more minor sources cited: it's not a singlesource article. However, I thought NMUSIC's other criteria were ways to possibly satisfy notability without relying on an abundance of coverage of the same profile as the LA Times articles. If there is a preponderance of coverage, then notability is satisfied without even talking about all the other criteria of NMUSIC. The articles by Emily Rome count as one indicator of notability, but I agree they are not sufficient on their own to establish notability. However, meeting NMUSIC#7 and NMUSIC#10 would be additional indicators of notability, which for me would add up together with the Emily Rome articles to sufficiently establish notability.
• Finally, I assert that Future World Music meets another criterion that was not previously discussed: NMUSIC's "Other #1": Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture. Indeed, Future World Music if frequently featured in the publication Trailer Music News, which is devoted to the notable music sub-culture of trailer music. Some of their coverage amounts to no more than interviews and track listings, which are defined by Wikipedia as not notable, but there are also reviews of Future World Music's albums, which would be more independent.

NMUSIC says these guidelines may be used by some editors as a rule of thumb to help in determining whether an article should be deleted, so I am choosing to use it as a rule of thumb. —pfahlstrom (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes in the notability for music guideline

Hi there ! I request community input regarding music article. The basic concern is the notability guideline is not written according to worldwide point. For example the criteria that a song article requires "non-trivial" coverage satisfies the countries with independent music, whereas this criteria does not applies to a notable film song, a film song will always have a discussion about the film does not matter how much the song is notable. So it does make retention of music articles from the countries which lacks independent music extremely difficult. For example South Asian countries like India, which has a long established film industry, the film's from India often consists approximate 7 songs of which many of the songs have reliable coverage but tribal whereas independent music have only started growing recently. Thus songs articles from India are often merged are redirected which is a bit frustrating for a music lover.

Whereas a film which is going to be released in 2018, 2019, 2020 has many articles "Untitled" existing on wikipedia, and a footballer who have played a single club match gets a standalone article.

This is quite discriminatory ! Isn't it ?Anoptimistix Let's Talk 17:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a proposal? Toddst1 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Yes ! I think we should trival coverages and relax notability guidelines for music to make music articles on par with film articles. Otherwise the merging and redirecting a song/album article to film article will never stop. MusikAnimal can provide some advice. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 01:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you be specific with the proposal other than "relax"? Relax is not a proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Allowing for "trivial coverage" would go against the General notability guideline, i.e., the topic must have received "significant coverage". This is explained as:

• "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, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. (emphasis added)

If a topic only receives one or two brief mentions, there would be nothing to write about, other than the fact that it exists (see WP:PERMASTUB). Otherwise, the article would have to rely on original research, synthesis, etc., for any reasonably detailed content. Just because some articles don't meet the requirements isn't a valid reason for allowing more.

—Ojorojo (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There might be a misunderstanding here. "Independent" is not used here to denote that it has to be a sole topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Only official mainstream being Wiki-worthy?

These whole guidelines look to me sooo consumeristic ... So, if 'everyone' knows some musician, he's still "unnotable" just because he didn't release anything under a major label, no cash for the big guys, so Wikipedia not interested too? What about underground artists in various authoritative regimes, these are also "unnotable" because the media were banned to write about them, so no media coverage = no notability? I know these are just guidelines and not strict rules, but still ... Similar as the guy in the India example above writes, there is big disproportion, some 'random' rotation in radio is more than zillions of views on Youtube? A starlet picked by some big producer to be one season hit is more 'notable' than a band touring for decades, winning many alternative awards but not 'the right ones' such as Grammy et al.?

I doubt the "notability" principle in general - storing a few bytes more to have an article about a topic interesting for 500 people in the whole world IMHO makes no harm, let's just collect the knowledge, maybe some time in the future someone will find out that it was more important than it was thought in our times, maybe the article will just "collect dust", so what? Okay, Wikipedians decided the other way ... But these particular guidelines go too far IMHO. Does something have to be official mainstream to be Wiki-worthy? Similar as the guy above, I come from different country/culture. We had dozens of artists banned from the media. Whole nation sung their songs, but for obvious reasons they couldn't pass the national chart, release album with major label, win in competition and similar notability criteria. --213.175.37.10 (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You mistake the intention of Wikipedia. We are supposed to report that which is notable, not make something notable. If nobody is interested in something, then neither is WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe I've missed some manifesto from Wikipedia founders, however, reading "Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopaedia", I don't see how providing encyclopaedical information is in conflict with 'the intention of Wikipedia'. Also, I don't see how having an article on a subject makes it notable - we're not talking about promoting it on the title page etc. If someone writes an article about a subject (and I mean serious article, not a fan page) then obviously someone is interested in that something, so your last argument is moot.

However, as said, criticism of the generic notability principle is not my point here. What I find wrong here is that the guidelines a) are heavily influenced by western [US and alike] POV, as already pointed out above, b) count just commercial success and completely ignore alternatives.

How do I read it, having two albums with e.g. Sony is enough to be 'notable' even if just thousands of copies are sold. Recording and releasing online on your own is not enough to be notable despite hundreds of thousands of downloads. (Or, sometime in the past somewhere in the east, records being copied on cassettes by half of the nation despite people being at risk of persecution for spreading illegal materials.) I won't hesitate to call that sick. But maybe I'm just mistaken - deep apologies in that case ... --213.175.37.10 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

You're reading it wrong then. This notability criteria assumes that a subject is notable in the cases we list. The underlying implication is that if a subject has been written about by independent, reliable sources, the subject is reliable. If a subject has released two albums on Sony but no one has written about the subject, it's not likely notable. Whereas if a subject has released two recordings independent of a label and media is writing about them, that subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Releasing albums on a major label is a path to notability for a musician; it is not the only path to notability. It is entirely possible for musicians who have avoided the label system entirely, self-releasing their music on Bandcamp, to qualify for an article, if they pass other criteria in the NMUSIC list — see for example A Tribe Called Red, a Canadian band who've pulled that exact trick off in spades: the music itself was all self-released, but they've gotten so much notice for it, and accomplished so bloody many things with it, that they check off eight of the other eleven NMUSIC criteria. Mainstream commercial success certainly constitutes notability for a musician, but it's not the only thing that does — there are other ways to pass NMUSIC besides having actually had a conventional Top 40 hit. But bottom line, our job on here is to reflect what gets media coverage, and not to help uncovered or undercovered artists create their media presence. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Demo albums by artists that later became notable

Are demo albums notable when they were by artists that themselves later became highly notable? Thinking of creating a few articles but want to make sure they won't be deleted first. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

They would only be notable is discussed by reliable sources. In practice if mentioned in sources they should be added to the text of the artist's page.Martinlc (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I was away when this was asked, but in short, no. Notability is not inherited. An album is not notable because it was created by a notable subject. There are many articles of musicians, whose albums were released on major labels, and those albums do not have articles because they are not independently notable. I would immediately think of Bruce Cockburn as an example of this. But there are many other examples. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Each demo would actually have to be reliably sourceable as passing this guideline's standards for the notability of albums in its own right. Even albums released after the band became "highly notable" aren't automatically presumed notable just for existing if the sourcing isn't there to support them. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Music Releases as Sources

Hi. I noticed that some of the songs of Simon Patterson (musician) has a section that has songs that I enjoy, but says it does not have sources. But, I have something to ask. Would online stores and official music labels can help as sources to the article? Thanks. Ivan Milenin (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't. What the article lacks is any evidence at all of reliable source coverage in media — technically online stores or his own record label would verify the existence and the titles of songs, but they wouldn't aid in establishing Patterson's notability because they don't represent media attention from sources independent of his own promotional machine. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean that to improve the article, do they have to come from the news? As I understand that not all artist are not known, but sometimes, official labels such as Black Hole Recordings, and Armada Music has a biography of musicians, including Simon Patterson. Whenever I receive a reply, I'll understand. Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to address your question directly. There are common misconceptions of what constitutes a single. The common definition we use on Wikipedia is that a single is a song that was released to radio to promote the song. This generally means that the song charted somewhere. Modern usage only uses the latter part of that definition: a song that was released to promote a release. In the past, a single would be released for sale as well as to radio formats. This would include 45 RPM (known today as a 7-inch) or a 33 1/3 RPM (known today as a 12-inch) vinyl recording. Later, these included "cassingles" or CD-singles. When online downloads became available, songs would be released in advance and independently of the recording that was to follow. This is not simply the release of an extended play, it was one song. Now, some consider any such independent release of a song to be a single. This could be for digital download, as a lyric video, or another music video. These would not constitute singles in the traditional sense of the word. As an aside, I think we need to come to a more clear definition of single and post that somewhere to avoid having to answer this question, as it happens about once every six months now.

So the possible reason that the section is tagged at the Simon Patterson article is that there's no indication of how these songs were release or to where they were released. A list of songs that the subject has worked on doesn't really constitute singles. That he released them as individual songs doesn't make them singles either. That they were available for sale doesn't make them singles either. That's why reliable sources are needed. To rephrase Bearcat's comment, online stores or his own record label would verify the existence and the titles of songs, but they wouldn't aid in help determine if they were singles because you can buy any individual song on iTunes or Amazon and the problem appears that this DJ doesn't have any major works, so he only seems to release songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability when most coverage of a person is for non-musical activity

I'm wondering about what to do with the Wes Scantlin article. I think it might be best as redirect to Puddle of Mudd (Scantlin's band), but there is, probably, significant enough coverage of Scantlin himself to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO#1. The problem is that most of this coverage relates to his various arrests and "onstage incidents", a list of which takes up the bulk of the article (which is a problem, per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, perhaps WP:COATRACK, etc.). How do we judge notability in this situation? Is he presumed notable, given that significant coverage in independent reliable sources exists, or should that coverage be put to one side insofar as it's focused almost entirely on his personal life rather than his music career? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If there's enough for GNG, which it appears there is, the subject is notable. It looks like you're looking for a way to categorize the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I'm not really sure what your second sentence means, could you clarify? What I'm looking for, aside from clarification on the notability issue (on which I'm inclined to agree with you, though I also think the article illuminates a problem with the GNG), is a sense of what might be done with this article about someone whose notability is almost entirely for doing things that we wouldn't normally want to make too central to an article about a musician. Ideally we would be able to find enough sources, and good enough sources, on his music career to flesh out that section of the article, butI haven't been able to find much. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Change word major to notable

I think we should change 'Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.' to 'Has won first, second or third place in a notable music competition.' Same for 'Has won or been nominated for a major music award'. What is major? It is unclear. Notable is well defined on Wikipedia. I cannot imagine a non-notable major music competition or a non-notable major music award. This would also fit with criteria 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the change, but are we now saying that the award itself must be notable as opposed to the competition.

Notable usually means, "has an article on Wikipedia because it meets notability guideline". In other words, the Billboard Music Awards are major and notable. But not all of the individual categories have articles, Top Song Sales Artist, Top Country Collaboration, and Top R&B Tour. So are we saying winning or being nominated for them falls outside of the criteria? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for record labels

There was a conversation starting a few months ago at WikiProject Music regarding criteria for the notability of record labels. Several editors expressed concern that WP:CORP, occasionally brought up in AfD discussions, was a poor fit for judging record label notability, and that this guideline says little about label notability (though it does mention labels in bullet 5). The discussion seems to have petered out at that venue, but a draft set of label notability guidelines was generated as a result of the process. I am cleaning it up and posting it here for potential inclusion in this document.

Here's the draft list:

1. Meets the GNG.
2. Is an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable.
3. Is (verifiably) key to the establishment, continuance, or resurgence of interest in a musical genre or regional musical scene.
4. Releases work which is routinely covered in trade publications or music criticism, or receives non-trivial mention itself in such coverage.
5. Is catalogued in major discographical resources (e.g., standard published jazz or classical discographies).

Pinging interested editors from the previous discussion: @Walter Görlitz: @78.26: @Michig: @Robman94: @Theodore Kloba: @Richard3120: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbles (talk • contribs)

@Walter Görlitz, 78.26, Michig, Robman94, Theodore Kloba, and Richard3120: Re-notifying since it wouldn't have worked without a signature. Jc86035 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• I assume we are discussing distinct options: either 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. The first isn't even worth adding since GNG covers it. I very much like wording of 3 and would make "verifiably" key to each of the other three. For 2, I would argue than "many" is not precise enough and instead I would say "at least half" or "at least ten". There are vanity labels (I have been dealing with one lately) that are started by an artist, and that artist then takes on distinct personae or forms slightly different bands, all "signed" to that label, and each meets MUSICBIO, so you could quickly assume the label is notable. 4. is problematic. There are small niche labels (rap, modern jazz, etc.) that will be covered by niche trade publications (Rapzilla, etc.) and so does that make the label notable? I think it needs to be fleshed-out much more. Otherwise, this is a good start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

  I had very much thought of this as akin to the existing guidelines - it identifies a series of potential avenues for establishing notability, any one of which can be sufficient (and if more than one is met, the case is correspondingly stronger). For that reason, I included #1, since it's basically like bullet 1 for artists here. Adding a definite threshold, like "at least half" or "at least ten", seems arbitrary - by comparison, even the GNG and WP:MUSIC bullet 1 don't specify the exact threshold of sources needed to establish notability. There are going to be cases where plainly notable labels won't hit that half threshold, and some noteworthy labels sign very few artists in total. As for niche labels...well, the circumstance you describe does sound like it would indicate such a label is notable, so maybe I'd have to see an example of why this could be problematic to really understand the concern there. Chubbles (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Chubbles for doing this. Regarding "many notable artists" it's hard, and perhaps unwise, to quantify. I see a some EDM labels with a large number of barely notable artists, and then as mentioned, there are some labels with fewer than five but highly notable artists. Which label is likely more notable? I'd argue for the second. Regarding "routinely covered" I like the wording, but should the phrase "reliable and independent" should be added? Some jazz journals were closely associated with labels. Some fanzines aren't worth their paper or bytes, etc. Regarding discographies, I'd also add in a mention of label discographies, to me a label included in the legacy web numerical discographies with editorial oversight is a strong indication of notability. This is opposed to a site (wonderful though it is) like discogs, where any record at all may appear. Just some preliminary thoughts. (ps thanks also to Jc86035 for the ping! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping, I agree that the vague terms need to be defined, or we'll still find ourselves in AfDs arguing over whether X is enough to qualify as "many" or "more than a few". My opening shot would be that 5 notable bands should qualify along with a history of at least 3 years for #2. For #3, can we talk about how one might prove that a label is important for a genre? It would be easy to prove that 2 Tone Records was important for ska, for example, as I assume there's lots of coverage on it, but then again, that coverage in of itself would give you GNG, but what about the genre that is a little more underground, what if I could cite a 100 blogs that talk about XYZ Records and the ABC genre? Blogs are not RS, but they would indicate that importance, if taken all together rather than individually. Thoughts? Robman94 (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• #1 GNG is an automatic primary critera. #2 roster of many notable artists is good. #3 looks like a mess: establishment, continuance, or resurgence of interest in a musical genre or regional musical scene. I can see an enthusiast of any obscure genre/label/band appealing to any portion of that. It gets a lot worse when you explicitly invite people to argue a "regional" interpretation. It would take a seriously exceptional case for this to be legitimate in the absence of GNG and the absence of a roster of notable artists. #4 looks like a repeat of #2 and #1, for labels that have failed #2 and #1. That's kinda broken. #5 Catalog type listings are broadly considered unhelpful for establishing Notability. One of the key purposes of Notability criteria is to ensure we actually have sufficient source material to generate an encyclopedic article. GNG does ensure that, and having a significant roster of Notable artists provides reasonable encyclopedic content. However mere appearance in catalogs does not allow us to produce anything more than a catalog listing ourselves. We don't do catalog listings. Alsee (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Labels often play powerful roles in creating or maintaining musical scenes - think of how a label like Arhoolie has played a continuing role in the musical life of many different styles of folk and roots music. Reissue labels can play that same role - a label like Light in the Attic Records has that quality. #3 is intended to reflect that. #4 is a reflection of the fact that coverage in music press outlets often focuses on an artist, even when the label itself is often the story - magazines often write stories about how "Band X signs to Label Y", where Band X is putting out its first album; this is coverage of Band X, but the real story is that Band X was picked up by a much more noteworthy distributor. Mere mention in a catalog doesn't mean much, but discographical catalogs often have listings of releases, which would verifiably fill out an artist list; this serves the same function that #2 serves. Chubbles (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see why WP:NCORP is not suitable? Many of the AfD discussions end up either pointing out that notability isn't inherited or that the coverage isn't in-depth or that the coverage isn't intellectually independent. Suggestion #2 appears to be the opposite of the intention of not allowing inherited notability. Suggestion #5 appears to be a way to allow for a trivial mention to establish notability. Perhaps if someone here can point to an AfD debate involving a label where some quality or attribute of a "label" was being ignored or downplayed, it might be easier to understand the precise "problem" if one exists (and I'm not convinced there is). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Some of my interest in doing a little work here came from a discussion had some time ago at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Fake Four Inc. WP:CORP, I think, misses the point, because the main reason we would have an article about a label is about its contributions to aesthetics and culture, rather than its status as an organization or business entity. Very few labels are big enough to make the business news pages, and it would be missing the point, in most cases, to write about them in that way. Bands are businesses, too; we could judge their notability solely via WP:CORP if we wished, but we do not treat them that way here at WP:MUSIC, nor should we. Chubbles (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on "Top Down Approach to Notability"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Opposed.Notability is rarely distributive over associated subjects, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV and a lot of other valid reasonings against the motion.No strong rebuttals, without violating fundamental policies etc. is observed.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

---

I am proposing a guideline, that using what I call a "Top Down Approach", if a song is notable, if the tune is an original composition by an artist, and the album that contains that song is the first album, and/or the only album to contain that song, that the album should probably be notable. I ran into this with "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy", whose history used to be an album article before being deleted at AFD. An album is a collection of songs, and if the songs are extensively reviewed, the album is essentially being reviewed.
Similarly, if an album by an artist is notable, the artist probably should also be notable, as the article can discuss the albums, and potentially the songs. This "Top Down Approach" can be applied to large companies, and other entities as well. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Thank you very much. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This clearly flies in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED. An album by a notable artist isn't inherently notable. For instance, Diamond Rio released I Made It last year, but it's so obscure that it's not even on Allmusic, and there are no reviews. EPs are generally not notable unless they contain material not otherwise released, or got multiple reviews of the EP. Songs do not transfer notability to their albums. Also, in cases such as Makin' This Boy Go Crazy, all of the songs on the EP ended up on the full album anyway, so the EP has no standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  Comment This is the exact inverse of NOTINHERITED. Using your example, a notable album likely means the artist is notable, although Jax 0677's starting point was a song.

  Your position is notable artist does not mean that every work is notable. I fully agree with that.

  Jax 0677's point is that if there is a notable work, the creator of that work is likely notable.

  Correct me if I'm wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Reply - @Walter Görlitz:, I agree that "notable artist does not mean that every work [of that artist] is notable". What I proposed, is that if SONG "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy" is notable, then ALBUM Makin' This Boy Go Crazy is likely notable, and MUSICIAN Dylan Scott is likely notable. In other words, to merge up to the next higher entity.

  • Comment Just a quick chime-in - I have always operated under this principle at AfD and in writing articles. If work by a creator receives coverage, that is coverage of the creator as well (be it song review, album review, show review, etc.). Chubbles (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @TenPoundHammer:, SONG "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy" did not end up on ALBUM Dylan Scott, nor did any of the other songs on ALBUM Makin' This Boy Go Crazy. I never said that "An album by a notable artist [is] inherently notable". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose the first suggestion that an album inherits notability from individual tracks - I get the impression in the age of the download albums receive far less attention than individual tracks. If a track or single is reviewed in isolation then that helps the single's notability, not the album (which would often be put together at a later date anyway).
  But as far as musicians inheriting notability from things they themselves create, well, that makes common sense to me. It follows the thinking of WP:CREATIVE. If authors and painters can be notable for creating notable work, why not musicians too. Sionk (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Though EPs and singles are becoming more prominent than LPs over time, EPs and LPs still exist in numerous quantities, and contain a multitude of songs. Therefore, a song can make an album notable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose To meet the general notability guideline, the topic (album or artist) must have "'Significant coverage' [that] 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, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." As a practical matter, what would there be to write about if the album or artist has no significant coverage? The article would be OR or a permastub. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reply - If the song or album is notable, it can either have a separate article, or be merged into the article about the album or artist, respectively. The goal of Wikipedia is to educate people, so an article about the album or artist with mentions about the songs or albums better serves that purpose than "Makin' This Boy Go Crazy" does, as that page does not mention "Mmm, Mmm, Mmm" like the Makin' This Boy Go Crazy album article did at one time. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I think the general point is, just because an individual song was a runaway #1 hit, and therefore easily qualifies for an article, if the album containing the song went unnoticed (no reviews, no charting, etc), it would not qualify. So, if you really want to create an article for the album or EP, try to find some sources that you can use to try and establish notability. Robman94 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose also Don't forget that people use Wikipedia for primary research, and adding "regulations" and guidelines for what should be included and what should be excluded impacts what people find when they use Wikipedia. The supposition of what is "notable" is a matter of opinion (for instance I don't believe "rap" to be music) so excluding songs which people might search for background information on just because they are rare songs or were fleeting, that's something that's against the general reason why Wikipedia exists in the first place. Damotclese (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Damotclese: I think you've missed the point. This isn't stating that an article about a song should not appear just because it is "fleeting", it's stating that if a song is notable, it's likely that the album on which it appears is notable and the artist or band that performed it is notable. That notability is because the parent subjects will likely be discussed as part of the discussion of the other topic. Unlike NOT:INHERITED, where it's stated that all works of a notable subject are not immediately considered notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified support Several commenters here seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of Jax's original proposal (though this does not necessarily mean they would have supported it if they had understood it). Coverage of an artist's work makes that artist notable, and this is true whether the reporting institution frames its coverage as being of that artist or of the work (e.g., whether they frame it as a profile piece or as an album or song review). This is occasionally mistaken as a NOTINHERITED problem, but in general, I think it makes little sense to think of an album review as being about a notable object rather than about the work of a notable person. So Jax's claims that song coverage or album coverage makes the artist notable is both already standard practice and should be codified as a general guideline to minimize confusion on the point.
  That leaves the question of whether song coverage makes an album notable. The big problem here is that many editors, including many who edit frequently in music, often conceive of albums as totally separate entities divorced from their makers, requiring separate substantial notability for a separate article. There are several editors who furiously dedicate much of their time on Wikipedia to rooting out and deleting (or more often, just unilaterally redirecting) albums without a battery of album reviews tacked on to them. This is an unfortunately narrow way of thinking about Wikipedia's coverage of popular music. Wikipedia could be a great resource for artist discographical information, in much the same way it serves as a gazetteer for geographical places, but the album-deletion efforts stymie this, because they remove legitimate information based on a misguided belief about the purpose of the notability requirement. If an album by a notable artist doesn't have a lot of third-party coverage, relevant discographical information (track listing, label, release date, etc.) could be left in a separate article (for reader convenience and ease of site use - it's annoying to have artists with, say, six albums but only two album articles), or it could all be merged into a single artist discography page (thus pushing the notability question back toward the artist), or it could be merged into the artist page itself. (I presume all of this information meets WP:V, and it usually does, in my experience.) But this kind of work almost never happens, at least in part because I think our music editors have not really thought creatively and critically about how best to structure the delivery of musical information to meet the needs of people interested in music. So maybe by asking about notability, we are asking the wrong question - instead, we should be thinking about what the best way to structure encyclopedic content is. Jax's proposal is at least a start down that road. Chubbles (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  Maybe the two things originally proposed need to be taken as separate discussions. Like you, I would have very different opinions on each. Sionk (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  Bit late to this party but as a newby, @Chubbles:'s points make sense to me. I think we need to be aware of the NOT:INHERITED principle which is there for a purpose. But I also think we need to apply it with some common sense and from a user perspective. If an album is notable then it's likely that some information about the artist is also relevant. Whether the artist info is better placed on the Album page or on a separate page depends. I think most users would - in most cases - expect the artist info to be on a separate page. In most cases I think an album's notability would reflect positively on the artist's notability. In practice, I would expect the sources that indicate the album's notability to (directly) indicate the artist's notability equally well. My key point (which is one of the 'pillars' (?)) is not to apply good principles and guidelines so strictly and automatically that they become detrimental rather than beneficial for information consumers in some cases.Mikemorrell49 (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Considering a label, an artist, an album, and a song, notability for any one will tend to increasing interest and coverage of related items in the list. However notability is not automatically inherited in any direction between them. It's possible for one to get significant coverage, with mere verifiable-existence coverage for another. If someone is seeking comprehensive and indiscriminate catalog/discography information, there are better places than Wikipedia to find it. Wikipedia does not and should not include the entirety of AllMusic, an entire catalog of corporation listings, the entirety of NASA's star and celestial-object catalogs, and hundreds of other comprehensive catalogs. Alsee (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  Do you mean by that to say that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to include comprehensive discographical information for a notable artist - that it would be indiscriminate to include a listing of all studio albums and singles from that artist, and track listings for those albums? I can't imagine anything more encyclopedic about a musical artist - not even biographical data. Chubbles (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  I agree. It strikes me as very odd that the occasional album from a notable artist could potentially be excluded as "non-notable" even if every other album from the same artist qualifies for its own article. In such cases a more consistent approach would be appropriate. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  You're arguing the wrong thing. The occasional album a notable artist is excluded as non-notable as it's not inherited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Why is NOTINHERITED the most important guideline to follow here? We often split off discography pages from artists for convenience, but in most cases, "the discography of artist X" is not in itself notable - artist X is. That's no more a NOTINHERITED problem than an album page, ultimately - it's about logical organization of the topic, rather than hidebound devotion to ensuring no album that hasn't been reviewed by five or six sources gets an article. Chubbles (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Who says it is? A discography article for an artist isn't a NOTINHERITED problem. Each article must stand on its own. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Why isn't a discography article for an artist a NOTINHERITED problem? I think it is only because we say it doesn't matter in this case - because it's logical organization to farm out the discography to a separate page. Chubbles (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  It's a size issue. If there's enough present for a stand-alone article, move it and leave simple entries for the studio albums. The names and release dates shouldn't really be an issue. Charting needs to be referenced. Sales figures need to be referenced. However, just because an artist exists doesn't mean that the artist needs to have a discography article. And just because an artist has release a work doesn't mean that a discography article should be created. It's conceivable that a group (for instance, the Symphony Orchestra of a small town that is staffed with players from a nearby large city) or an artist has released fifteen or twenty albums, with the accompanying singles, without any of them achieving notability. the lack of articles for singles and albums does not preclude a discography article, but it would be odd to have one as the releases likely don't take-up a lot of space in the article. Again, it's a size issue, not a NOTINHERITED issue. Do you see it as a NOTINHERITED issue? Feel free to explain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  Size is a logical organization issue. Chubbles (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I want to make the point, which I haven't seen articulated often enough in the above, that the principle of encyclopaedicity should trump NOTINHERITED each, and every time. Coverage of all notable artists should include encyclopaedic (that is, comprehensive) coverage of their works, even when artists have minor works that are not individually notable. Also, as WP:ARTIST implies, all artistic works are produced by artists - there is no such thing as a notable work without a notable artist (barring the novel boundary case of AI-generated works), NOTINHERITED notwithstanding. The work may be better-documented than the artist, and in some cases the identity or available information about the artist(s) may not actually be sufficiently well-documented to support an article, but artists do not need to be "noteworthy" in the sense of generating coverage apart from their artistic work in order to meet the GNG.

TL; DR - notable works imply notable artists and deserve encyclopaedic coverage; in some cases this can be incorporated within an artist article and in other cases in a list article, which depends on considerations of length, rather than principle, as has been discussed at length above. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me take this in priority order. You have it backward. If a work is be better-documented than the artist, it is likely notable (this assumes that the documentation is in reliable sources that are independent). The creator of that work, therefore, is notable because of the work. Period. That is not what NOTINHERITED states. And it is what is being suggested here.

NOTINHERITED states that if you have a notable artist (Cliff Richard or Christopher Cross) not all of the artist's works should have an article just because they were created by the notable artist (The 31st of February Street or Rendezvous respectively) because each work must stand on its own. It does not mean that an encyclopedic mention of the album should not be made in the artist's article or in the artist's discography. And WP:ARTIST, by extension, supports that. Piet Mondrian and Albrecht Dürer are notable painters, but not all of their paintings, collections or periods have articles. Margaret Atwood, Flannery O'Connor and William Golding are all notable authors, but not tome they penned has an article (and I see that some that do have articles shouldn't, but I'll let someone else address that problem). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2017 (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.

Top 10 singles

I have been improving top 10 singles articles for the UK charts. I have a query about a couple of situations where a song has been reissued later the same year, should it count as a separate entry for each artist - I am talking specifically about 1985, when Band Aid's original version was still in the chart at the beginning of the year, and then the song was re-issued with a new remix at the end of the year with the same artists.

Should I combine the number of weeks in the "entries by artist" table for both entries, and count them as one release, or do they count as two separate songs and therefore each featured act's total should be raised by one? A similar point over Last Christmas that same year, where it entered in 1984, was in the chart for the early weeks of the year, and reissued over Christmas 1985 (technically not a re-entry like in this and last year's christmas chart).

For now I have got them as separate entries in the chart but combined the figures for entries by artist but I change this if needed. 03md 11:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Classical Music

Hi all. I don't think this current page works very well for Classical music, specifically the "songs" category. Most classical music is never going to rank, eliminating number one, and most classical music is not going to win a Grammy, eliminating number two. That leaves three, "has been independently recorded," which admittedly works, if we consider the average city symphony orchestra to be a notable group. However, category three, while it works, generally misses what makes Classical music notable, and would turn Wikipedia into a catalog of "Classical FM's Top 500" rather than an encyclopedic discussion of notable works of Classical music. It would also create a bias towards orchestral works, as chamber ensembles typically do not have as much notability as symphony societies.

I don't have an answer as to what Classical notability requirements should be, but I have some suggestions which could be refined into something better by more experienced editors.

1. The work is written about or analyzed at length in an independent secondary source. The book does not need to be about the work, but it should be a non-trivial mention analysis of the work. A good example of this would be Beethoven's string quartets--there are multiple scholarly books about them.

2. The work is considered a "standard" part of the repertoire for a particular instrumental grouping. For example the Vaughan Williams Oboe Concerto is not well known even within the classical music world, but within the oboe world it's known as one of the two most significant works written for oboe in the 20th century, and arguably since the early Romantic period, which makes it or its partner the Strauss Oboe Concerto essentially mandatory for oboe students auditioning to get into a master's program. Furthermore, what I just stated can be verified on the internet. Another example would be Cambini's Wind Quintets--again, while they're not typically known in the classical music world, these three quintets essentially founded the woodwind quintet as a modern ensemble, which makes them very notable.

3. The work has been recorded independently by notable ensembles. (This would be keeping the third requirement of the original song category, and would be especially helpful for modern classical music, as those pieces usually haven't been around long enough to have had proper analyses written about them, or to have become part of the standard repertoire.)

Any of these three points could be used to establish notability, rather than needing all three.

Points number two and three would be important in providing some guidance for people writing articles about concert band works, as concert band has established lists of standards maintained by state authorities and other organizations, and right now the concert band works part of Wikipedia is pretty weak and all over the place.

(NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC))

Disagree with this proposal to add massive layers of unnecessary complexity. FYI, a Beethoven string quartet is not a song. Vaughan Williams's Oboe Concerto is not a song (etc). So why would compositions that easily pass WP:GNG be first translated into songs, then end up in guidance that doesn't fit, and can only be made to fit to these compositions when adding massive complications?

Also the whole analysis of ensembles ("bias towards orchestral works") is missing the point: classical music "songs" are most often not recorded by "notable groups" (e.g., not every notable singer combined with a notable pianist does necessarily make a notable "group"), while they'd easily pass "released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" (emphasis added).

Also, why should a modern classical song with no notable recordings nor independent reporting about it have a separate article? Either its composer is notable or not: when the composer is notable, documented compositions can be mentioned in the composer's biographical article; or the composer is not notable enough for a separate article, and if in that case there is no independently commented recording, nor other independent commentary about the song, then we certainly shouldn't have a separate article on this song. Wikipedia is not for promotion of what has no significant coverage in usual media. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your first criteria is WP:GNG and is not needed. Again, your second criteria is GNG again. If a community knows about it, it can be sourced to that community and passes GNG. The third criteria is not workable. There are plenty of classical works that have been recorded by an independently notable ensemble, such as the Kronos Quartet or a major symphony, that fails the most simple notability criteria. So that doesn't fly in any way with me. Even if two notable solo performers record a work, but it's just a filler on their album, does that make it notable? No. So in my opinion, the first two criteria are superfluous and the third is not a sign of notability. Also, Francis Schonken makes excellent points. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, everyone. I was not intending to refer to non-notable modern classical songs. My primary concern was that a number of important standard repertoire pieces have not been recorded by notable ensembles, for the reason that certain ensemble groupings that were once popular are no longer popular. However, I underestimated the number of notable ensembles.(NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC))

Tour criteria

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

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