Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Stop discriminating against notable independent artists

There are so many notable groups that are being neglected by Wikipedia because they have yet to hop on the commercial band-wagon of the RIAA! If anyone else feels this issue is important, please discuss!

- a NOTE on NOTABLILTY - we wikipedians should keep in mind that many artists, such as the vindictives and screeching weasel intentionally kept themselves out of the public eye, off of magazine covers, and out newspaper articles. Their anti-social, non-participatory behavior is significant in and of itself and was directly communicated through their songs. This is much the case with many artists from the late 1970s and 1980s and even the early 1990s. (however after the punk/indie community finally got over itself a number of years after Dookie, we started to see a return to competitive, "rock 'n role playing" (tm), street team touting, media kit distributing, intentionally ironically confident musicians and artists) Point being, even though these artist did not chart on billboards hot singles, or aggessively market their image, they made important contributions to the cultural scene, ripples which have returned with implications transformed. - (copied from the Talk page of The Vindictives)

sorry to bombard this on the top of the heap, but i didn't know where to put it, having read a number of different sections. as a relatively new wikipedian, i'd like to say that im confident that artists will be covered in an appropriate way. The built-in structures of user-names, dense texts, and page histories effectively creates a situation where articles will be created as they are needed. We need to also keep in mind that the totality of human knowledge grows with time and with the number of humans alive. If for instance a current archeological excavation uncovered a city in australia, this would constitute a notable subject despite lying dormant for thousands of years. The example could be brought closer to music itself in that notable musicians from years by gone are wholesale ignored because their enthusiasts have either passed away, or are, for the majority, not computer savy. In any case, wikipedia is its own culture itself and the length and breadth of it is merely defined by its participants. Let's have confidence that artists will be given appropriate credit in due time, and in due fairness. User:Xsxex

I propose adding the following:

Is nationally and/or internationally distributed

  • Bands must prove their worth and importance to receive distribution. Most distributors are not interested in wasting time and resources on groups that will not sell, or lack appeal.

Has official sponsorship from at least two notable music companies

  • Notable companies strive to find artists to whom they can attach their brand and name. If a notable company has screened and approved an artist, the artist is therefore considered notable and worthy of sponsorship. PeterPan23 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think distribution is really a worthwhile proposition in the day and age of the internet, where I can hop on any site and buy any album I want. Even I want to see more bands survive the deletion eye, but I can't even get behind that. The sponsorship one, however, is quite intriguing, and I'd be interested in seeing us try to flesh that out more. Then again, most bands that have sponsorship deals probably meet the touring or media requirements anyway. Do you have any examples of bands that might meet that criteria for sponsorship, but not the others? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part in the discussion BDJ, to answer your question...

BIPOLAR (www.bipolarmusic.com)

  • Bipolar officially endorses Godin Guitars, Elixir Strings and Krank Amps
  • Bipolar signed a distribution deal with Stretch the Skies, Inc. this year, and have had sales in every state in the country. Their album Rupture is available at all Trans World Stores nationwide. This includes FYE, Coconuts, Strawberries, Wherehouse Music, Spectre's and Planet Music.
  • Their song As I Bleed has been #5 on GarageBand.com since December, earning it an All-Time ranking of #22 out of nearly 9000 songs internationally.
is this site notable as a whole Spearhead 08:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Since January, almost 37,000 different people have visited their website.
this is not verifiable Spearhead 08:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this not evidence of a notable independent band?? PeterPan23 05:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In general I have not had any problems considering notability of independent bands. Most band articles I have added concern indie bands. As such I think the guidelines are sufficient and not at all biased towards RIAA. Spearhead 08:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Spearhead, all of that information is verifiable fact. Speak with the artist representatives at the named companies. They'll tell you about the endorsements. Go to www.garageband.com and view the charts. Visit Bipolar's distribution company at stretchtheskies.com, or walk into any FYE and ask for the CD. There is solid evidence to support all of these claims. Go to the bands website and read the hundreds and hundreds of comments from fans all around the world. PeterPan23 12:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

drop "extremely" for side projects

I propose changing this:

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

I see no reason for the word "extremely". We already make a clear allowance for merge/redirect, in cases where there isn't sufficient material for a stand-alone article. Surely, an entire band of a notable musician has at least as much merit as a non-hit album. We don't restrict album articles to "extremely" notable musicians, so why do we do this for side/old/new bands? --Rob 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see the need for some kind of qualifier there. I don't know obscure music, so let me cite an example that is obviously too mainstream to be really good: Page and Plant is a group that had limited success and impact compared to Led Zeppelin. However, Page and Plant is a notable project, even if it doesn't meet other criteria, because of its _especially_ significant members. (Obviously, both of these are clearly notable, though.) I guess the point is, if a band is notable because it's a side project of a particular musician, that musician had better be very clearly notable, or the notability claim is suspect. "Extremely" may be too strong though: how about "Particularly" as a replacement? Mangojuice 05:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in such cases, a merge/redirect is appropriate. I think if somebody types in a band name, and we don't have an article on the band, but we do have an article on a "barely notable" former member of the band, we should always redirect to that person's bio. I think we agree that if somebody "just qualifies" for a bio, we don't want to automatically create articles for every single band they used to play with. However, doing a merge/redirect from those past bands, seems harmless. --Rob 06:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Indie bands/labels/etc.

How can we add requirements for indie musicians? Many artists and record companies which are quite notable as well as influential would be deemed not notable based on the current guidelines and certain user interpretations of them. I have had bands with over ten releases on major and indie labels with much press and a pass on the (debatable) google tests marked for deletion because the band in question was not on the radio or have a gold album or...pick your choice of guidelines used. I hope to help add an independant musician section to these guidelines so that it is clear that all genres and groups cannot be deemed non-notable under the same criteria. I believe that mainstream success should not be utilized to determine 'underground' or 'local' notability. Madangry 02:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest some new guidelines. Tuf-Kat 04:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Too vague, and why does the record company article have to exist before the performer? This just moves the issue from whether or not a band is notable to whether or not the label is notable.
  2. Does this mean a song or album that already has an article? That seems unlikely to ever occur.
  3. Do you know what their criteria are?
  4. To what standard?
  5. Wikipedia:Verifiability is already policy
  • Responses

--Too vague, and why does the record company article have to exist before the performer? This just moves the issue from whether or not a band is notable to whether or not the label is notable.

-The label doesn't HAVE to per say have an article exist prior to the performer. But if this were the case it would be a good criteria for notability of artist. Not a requirement, a criteria for verifiability

--Does this mean a song or album that already has an article? That seems unlikely to ever occur.

-Not so. For example, an article I created for Four Deadly Questions was done after I deemed them notable enough to include here yet in their case the label and album available and notable enough to have an article existed before the band had enough information to include in wiki. Again, not a requirement, but if it were the case, it would be a good criteria.

--Do you know what their criteria are?

-Whose? Please elaborate.

--To what standard?

-For what? I'm unsure as to what you mean.

--Wikipedia:Verifiability is already policy

-I understand this. But despite that many of the notable artist articles I have started are being set for deletion because DESPITE verifiability these users claim "Does not meet WP:MUSIC", a page which I feel only addresses mainstream media.Madangry 19:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • PS-If these were too vague, I was simply hoping to spark discussion. I do not know what would be good criteria for independant artists/musicians/companies. What I do believe is that users using the WP:Music criteria to delete indie organizations is unfair. Especially when they meet --Wikipedia:Verifiability Madangry 19:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • To further expand on my views- "Wikipedia should not place "mainstream = notability" constraints on independent music." (Paraphrased from Japanther delete page comments by Howrealisreal) Madangry 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • There are already numerous ways for indie bands to be notable, and many indie bands have articles. I'm in favor of adding more guidelines as needed. To clarify:
  • Has a record label/release with an article: using Wikipedia to prove notability is not appropriate -- the whole point of these guidelines is to use outside sources
  • Allmusic: what standards do they they use?
  • Google: far too unreliable, it's extremely easy to grab a large number of google hits through simple spamming. I don't think having an album or label article in Wikipedia is appropriate because
  • I think your last comment got cut off....I see what you're saying. Outside sources to prove notability, not Wikipedia. You got me there. Then I have no idea what guidelines to propose for this unfair situation. For Google, I TOTALLY agree that it's a horrid test...but I was running out of guideline ideas. Allmusic's standards? You got me there. I have no idea. But usually I can find artists on there if they aren't too small scale or underground...a very nice database of music samples....... So help me out...for I'm in favor of adding guidelines as needed (obviously)...its just obvious that my suggestions are not only too vague they may be invalid. Does anyone else have any ideas? Any better guidelines for weighing the notability of the "independant" culture? Or am I the only one who is really caring about the need for such? I tried..... Thanks. Madangry 08:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should avoid increasing the number of criteria points. Rather, lets look at something that replaces some of the detailed criteria we have, and is fair to various types (including indie). I suggest going to WP:CORP (subbing the word "band" for "company"). It's fair to indies, because it doesn't require commercial success. But, it does require reliable sources completely independent of the band, to have written about them. That's an indication that a) we have good material to base on article on and b) somebody beyond the band/family/frands have an interest in reading about it. --Rob 08:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm loving every minute of it. Thank you for such an amazing work-around. I never would have stumbled upon it myself. But I like this idea very much. Good job. Madangry 08:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The only guideline that would be really applicable would be having "multiple non-trivial published works". Since any band that has a prominent mention in music media already qualifies, this would effectively extend it to bands that may not be featured in music media, but would have coverage in media that are not music-focused. Right? Tuf-Kat 17:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It would extend to non-music media, but also to "non-major" music media *if* its truly independent and reliable (e.g. not one of those sights that reprints whatever the band gives them, and calls it a "review"). It's the "non-major media" part, that would address concerns for indie bands. --Rob 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Right, and so it would be up to the article writer to establish evidence of such non-trivial published works and for users to determine if such write-ups were biased. Right?Madangry 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the methods for determining notability for self-published and indie bands need work. I understand that nobody wants garage bands on here and the ultimate need is verifiability, but what about bands that simply chose not to be signed to a label? Many are spread consistently via word of mouth, and in some cases may be doing something noteworthy but are not consistently covered by major media, perhaps because it's in major media's interest *not* to tell people about them. Also, why does a creative work need to be printed onto a physical medium and sold in order to be considered a notable piece of work? In today's landscape where self-publishing is taking place at an increasing rate, and permanent verifiability is hard to get, I think it's reasonable to relax the standards of notability to consistent reference in relevant blogs and academic publications. I mean, you have Podcasts with articles on Wikipedia, and the only technical difference is that their work is wrapped up in a 5 line XML document before it gets to the user. --Cellophane 05:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have a good point. Soon, requiring music be on physical media, is going to seem like demanding music be on a vinyl record. Also, I think its good to point out the flaws of "major media". Often, major media is part of a larger corporation and they're simply writing to promote their own talent, over their competitors. But, for some reason we give them weight because they're national or international. A small publication, that's independent, may provide much more neutral and reliable coverage. However, while I agree partly with you, I think we can't relax standards on verifiability. Rather, we should focus more on verifiability, and less on fame and fortune. --Rob 08:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, very nice. I whole heartedly agree with Rob and cellophane. As for what kind of work is to be done on determining notability, and what to do until these guidelines are set in place I have no idea. Madangry 17:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So will a "multiple non-trivial published works" and/or an independant artists section be added to the music guidelines? Consensus? Madangry 00:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody's proposed an independent artists section be added, AFAICT, so no on that one. If you'd like to make a specific change, please propose a specific change first -- what exactly do you want to add?. Tuf-Kat 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
      • My comment was the proposition for a section to be added. But I guess it doesnt count? You are one tough cat, Tuf-Kat. Ok, I propose we add this new guideline then - Artists having multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media (music or non-music, major or not major, mainstream or not mainstream).
        • It seems kind of silly to have both that criterion and the one about major music media, since presumably anyone that meets the latter would also meet the former, so I've combined the two. Since this discussion hasn't attracted much attention, I've put a clear proposition at the bottom of this page. If no one objects in the next week or so, go ahead and make the change. Tuf-Kat 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Notability Proportional to Genre?

If a genre is considered notable, but only has 10 or so artists, doesn't it stand to reason that the notability of those artists should be gauged proportional to the size of the genre rather than in comparison to artists of large genres with thousands of bands? --Cellophane 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I think I agree...but which genre did you have in mind that only has 10 artists?? (Just interested to know what was on your mind when you posted that...) Madangry 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Nerdcore_hip_hop --Cellophane 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
haha, wow. Madangry 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change

Per the above conversation, please consider changing:

  • Has been prominently featured in any major music media.

To:

  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media

This would make that guideline roughly equivalent to WP:CORP, and would significantly loosen the guideline. Tuf-Kat 02:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted until consensus has been reached. I agree with the idea behind the change, but how do we define "non-trivial"? and whats meant by "verifiable media"?--Urthogie 18:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I think because the wording is similiar to WP:CORP and WP:WEB, implicitly, the same type of qualifiers apply here, as they do there, when defining "non-trivial". Verifiable media, in my mind, just means, based on WP:V, we use independent and reliable sources (e.g. promotional material doesn't count, and fan sites don't count). But, I would like to here what you think needs to be changed/added. --Rob 19:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't my school newspaper be a non-trival verifiable medium, if it has a website?--Urthogie 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you went up to the "Indie bands/labels/etc." discussion which spawned the proposed change before deeming no consensus and reverting the change. All of this has already been addressed and I am unsure as to what about it you dont agree with. I agree with Rob as long as the medium is not promotional in nature and not a fan administered outlet it should be ok to be considered as non-trivial (and as you can see in the previous discussion the wording was taken from WP:CORP)...a school newspaper would be a non-trivial verifiable medium i.e. music reviews in a college newspaper would be considered non-trivial verifiable. Now, would you be so kind and change it back? Thank you so much for understanding. Madangry 20:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm very likely to support the change once my above question is answered(and perhaps discussed slightly).--Urthogie 20:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I might be misunderstanding the question then, because I'm almost positive it was indirectly addressed in the above "Indie bands/labels/etc." discussion. And if not, me and Rob have now attempted to answer the question. Thanks Madangry 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
People shouldn't have to reference a discussion; it should be implicit in the wording of the guideline, no?--Urthogie 21:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh see, I was misunderstanding you. I thought you had a question regarding the change itself but rather you meant to the exact wording of the change. My bad entirely. Madangry 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


  • The change was reasonable and has been well-understood in other contexts. It's actually been very effective in WP:CORP at weeding out the corporate press-releases and minor local papers. To address your specific question, "non-trivial" means that first that a mere mention of the existence of a thing is insufficient. An article focusing on the price of milk that mentions the corner grocery store in passing does not count as evidence of the notability of the grocer. For an article to count as evidence, it must be primarily about the subject and go into the subject in some depth. Some independent reporter must have put some real thought and effort into researching the company (or in this case, the band). Second, "non-trivial" excludes anything that is self-published. Press releases (and articles that are just reprints of the company's or band's press release) fail to qualify. Self-published material is inherently problematic when we're trying to meet the rules of WP:V. "Verifiable media" means that we pay attention to souces that meet our criteria under WP:V and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. A high school paper would not count as a "verifiable media". A very few college papers might count but most would not. Even some professionally published township papers fail to qualify when evaluating corporate coverage. Blogs and fansites likewise fail WP:V. The intent is clearly to limit ourselves to media that are reputable as independent sources. Rossami (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Just want to applaud and thank you for such an in-depth answer regarding non-trivial definitions. Madangry 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok that answers both questions, I'd just suggest adding footnotes to explain the phrases though. Support--Urthogie 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict. this reply may now be moot.) I would say that high school papers (and most college papers) fail because are they inherently sources of dubious reliability because the reporters are unpaid and untrained (or at best, still in the earliest stages of their training). A local band getting any coverage worth mentioning will certainly get coverage beyond student papers. Rather than footnotes, may I recommend adding links to the relevant policy pages. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Videos

How about expanding having a song on rotation on a 'major radio network', to having a video on rotation on a national music video channel? Morwen - Talk 13:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability of genre

Do any guidelines exist pertaining to the notability of a genre? Please point me in the right direction. Could wikipedians have overlooked this? Kilbosh 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a genre is notable if it's been mentioned by name in the mainstream press or if it refers to the most popular style of a given region.--Urthogie 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think some one should take the time to put up some guidelines for musical genres.... there is a wildgrowth of metal subgenres Spearhead 17:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and start a section on genre notability.--Urthogie 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Placed in major award show?

Can someone more familiar with this subject clarify what is meant by the criteria for musician notability "Has won or placed in a major music competition"? What does it mean to "place" in a major music competition? Currently there are several articles of competitors in the current American Idol season nominated for deletion, and I am unclear whether or not they are covered by this criteria. --DDG 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Not sure. I assume it means in competition for an award like the Grammys. Not a reality tv competition. Madangry 23:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know if "American Idol" would qualify, although I'd certainly say placement in the final whatever (12? 16?) is a worthy qualification, but I always personally interpreted "major music competition" as a regional/national thing, and not, say, a local battle of the bands. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 23:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, American Idol definitely does not qualify as a "major music competition". The finalist might be noteworthy for inclusion under the media coverage clause in WP:BIO but would not be appropriate under this criterion. To answer your specific question, to "place" generally means to be the second place finisher. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples of media

I reverted the recent changes because I didn't as much as see a discusison. I worry about listing a series of possible music publications because I fear interpretation of ONLY coverage by them, and it also weakens the non-trivial media line item above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your revert. I think merely being "cataloged" doesn't mean much, and is exactly the type of thing we wanted to avoid when we require "non-trivial" coverage. I suspect anybody, who made an effort, can get cataloged. Such cataloging merely confirms existence, and not signficance. As for reviews, I thought anybody could make a review on Amazon, so they're not exactly a "reliable source". --Rob 16:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Genre notabilty guidelines proposal

Here we go with some attempts at guidelines for genre notability. Metal music has this imo taken beyond any reasonability so it is definitely needed.

  • at least n notable artists (where n is to be defined... 10? 20? 100?)
  • not restricted to a regional scene
  • Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being a music genre.
  • is known beyond its own subculture
  • defines a style sufficiently different from other genres

Regular requirements from WP apply of course and Google tests and such may be helpful as well. Spearhead 20:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I do support having guidelines for genres, but these are rather vague. The first one seems nice but would only be practical if those artists already had articles that clearly demonstrate notability, which won't work for the vast majority of genres that need to actually be evaluated against these criteria. The second one is somewhat confusing -- would this mean that no regional scenes are ever notable? So, everything from the Piedmont blues to Japanese hip hop? The third is good, but could be tightened; I think I once proposed something similar and said that the source must use the genre term without "so-called" or scare quotes or anything else (in other words, the source assumes the reader will be familiar with it... but on the other hand, it's perfectly appropriate for wiki to have articles on unfamiliar terms, so maybe that's not such a good idea). The fourth also suffers from vagueness: taken pedantically, might this ban all varieties of folk music not known outside of the group in question? Maybe explicitly limit these guidelines to popular music (it'd be silly to try and apply such a thing to the music of the trecento too). The last is also a nice idea, but it just moves the question from notability to "sufficiently different"... rock music in Lawrence, Kansas is "sufficiently different" if you live in Lawrence, Kansas, and troll metal is "sufficiently different" if you hate songs about trolls but otherwise like metal... Anyway, don't take this as a discouragement, just remember that these guidelines might seem crystal-clear until you start actually applying them to unfamiliar cases with little info available. Tuf-Kat 00:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (PS don't forget to consider radio formats too)
Tuf-Kat...I really like how you dissect each proposal on here and break down each and every problem with them. I like how in depth you go into the why's and why-not's they can be included....But seeing as how you know so much about this subject what is missing from your comments is your own changes to the suggestions--your proposals on how to fix the proposals if you will. You always seem to say "this is too vague" or "too confusing" but you never put in your two cents as to how YOU would like to see the guidelines rewritten--and I for one would be interested in hearing your opinions on most of these subjects as opposed to your Administrative duites. I know you didn't come up with said suggestions, but if you feel it is vague you've got to have some idea as to how you would like to see it worded. Right? What I'm trying to get at is constructive criticism is great, especially on this talk page and especially from you....but a little help with wording and reforming and actually pinning down what would be good guidelines is more important and would be very helpful from one such as yourself. Madangry 18:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
For as far as the first one goes, I guess the bands start and become notable before the genre. the second, is very similar to 4th. What I mean to say is that the genre is known in some way outside the group of people that comprise the bands and fans. Japanese hip hop would be notable if people know it in e.g. Norway and Zimbabwe or in #4 if people who are into eg death metal or opera are aware of its existence. I agree on the fifth a bit. But somehow you have to say that there is a difference between this genre and all the others so that it warrants inclusion. Spearhead 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't create too much instruction creep. Why not make it so that genres have to pass X number of the WP:MUSIC requirements(musicians must only pass 1)?--Urthogie 18:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The best way to answer this question would be to pick a genre that is just barely notable. And see how many it fits.--Urthogie 19:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Also many electronic genres get almost no "mainstream" coverage. Allmusic for example doesnt say dick about many, Ishkur's guide is waaaay too tongue and cheek to take seriously (although he does cover many sub-genres and how they are inter-related). Discogs is user-entered so it can also contain vanity entries... I think the best way to cut it down for a label, would be at least 1 release on a label which went at a minimum Silver in sales (10,000 copies). This would be an easy enough barrier of entry to pass for most labels worth a damn, and not so high that it cant be passed (as it doesnt matter WHERE said sales went silver: Iraq, Zimbabwe, Tunesia, USA, Japan... all would be acceptable.) As for artists... we can debate all day, but i'd say any artist with 1 release going Silver or better anywhere in the world constitutes worthiness for inclusion. Its not a super hard barrier to cross... but the source would have to be verifiable, therein is the hard part!  ALKIVAR™ 02:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about genre notability, not record label notability. So I don't think basing it on a record going silver counts in this discussion. BTW, what is Ishkur's guide??? I'm interested!! Madangry 02:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are the guidelines we ended up with last time this was proposed, with no consensus Tuf-Kat

A musical genre or subgenre is notable if at least two of its participants (either by self-definition or according to a major music media), musicians or ensembles, meet the criteria above. Additionally the genre itself is notable if it:

  1. Has had two or more international concert tours named or promoted as being of that genre (for example the tour Ozzfest for genre heavy metal music), or two or more national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country*
  2. Has been prominently featured in any two major music media in a feature devoted primarily to the genre and not a specific artist who plays it
  3. Is a genre that contains within it a subgenre that otherwise meets these guidelines
  4. Has historical interest through influencing a notable genre, musician, or ensemble
  5. Has a category in a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award
  6. Contains at least three musicians or ensembles who are referred to using the name of the genre as their primary field by at least three sources of any kind each; note that by primary field, the musician or ensemble must be more commonly referred to by the genre in question than other, possibly more established genres
  7. Two or more major mainstream or alternative music media refer to the genre without using so-called "scare quotes" or defining the genre appositively or parenthetically (i.e. they assume the reader will be familiar with the term)

Does anyone agree that we should avoid instruction creep and find a way to base genre notability guidelines on the current band guidelines somehow?--Urthogie 10:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

{{db-band}}

{{db-band}} and {{music-importance}} seeme to contradict eachother. I got really confused by this. "Important note: This is NOT a criterion for speedy deletion." yet it has it's own Catigory. I taged Neon Zoo {{music-importance}} but somebody else taged it {{db-band}} and i didn't realise {{db-band}} is it's own template so i chaged it to AFD but then chaged it back when i realied {{db-band}} had i'ts own template. I can't argue that {{db-band}} isn't Criteria for Speedy deletion if it has it's own template?--E-Bod 02:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks to the CSD criteria at A7, band articles that don't assert notability can be speedied now. It's unfortunate, but that's what the consensus at the time said. The point of the "contradiction" is that non-notability isn't a speedy criteria, but that doesn't mean that articles can't be speedied if they don't attempt to assert it. Either way, my hope is that the A7 criteria can be shoehorned into prod if and when prod becomes policy, but that's a ways off. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think in your example, Neon_Zoo, did assert its notability, but its still debateable whether its truly notable. So, I removed the inappropriaate {{db-band}}. I think {{music-importance}} is still appropriate. It needs to better explain its importance, and most signficantly, produce some independent media sources, that have written about them. --Rob 02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the text on the main page. Articles that fail the "notability" requirement can be deleted through AfD. Articles that don't even attempt to assert that the subject is notable can be speedied. Use {{music-importance}} if the article claims notability but doesn't establish it, or if you think the band might actually be notable even though it isn't claimed. Use {{db-band}} if the article doesn't claim notability and the band probably isn't notable.--Srleffler 06:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Festivals

Apparently, appearances at festivals don't count as a notability criteria. Odd. A band could theoretically play to more people in one festival appearance than in an entire tour, but under the current guidelines, it wouldn't count. exolon 02:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Which festivals are you referring to? Kafziel 03:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Major UK music festivals such as the V Festival, Glastonbury Festival, Reading Festival etc attract from around 50,000 to over 100,000 people to each of them every year. exolon 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, given the nature of those festivals (multiple stages, multiple days, etc.), you can not automatically jump to the conclusion that all 50,000 (or all 100,000) people watched that particular band's performance at the festival. Maybe they did but maybe they didn't. Participation at a major festival may be contributing evidence but I'd be skeptical of claims that it's sufficient all by itself to establish a band's appropriateness for an encyclopedia article. Besides, most bands invited to play at such festivals in more than a minor warm-up role will already meet one of the other criteria. Rossami (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
In addition, given the amount of press that such festivals often generate--a band that did anything noteworthy at a festival performance is likely to generate sufficient press afterwards to meet the criteria here. I'm all for adding "playing at a festival in which the band receives significant billing" as a criteria, but I'm not sure it will enable any bands currently not eligible.--EngineerScotty 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's worth adding - Skin played Monsters of Rock before they'd even released an album. exolon 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
It's impossible to say how many people were drawn there for them, though. Plenty of non-notable bands have played at festivals and spent the whole time dodging beer cans and water bottles thrown by the crowd. I tend to agree with EngineerScotty - a major festival in which the band received significant billing could be okay, but simply playing a secondary stage to a non-specific audience doesn't necessarily mean a band is notable. Kafziel 22:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Albums criteria

Currently, the notability criteria state that a group is notable if it:

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

I feel as though this lets in a whole lot of completely non-notable bands who haven't won awards, had any popular songs, been a notable part of any scene, toured anywhere, been written about, etc. The issue of whether an independent label is notable enough creates a whole separate set of headaches, and the criteria listed here make the notability a pretty low bar. An otherwise non-notable group becomes notable if they are signed to an independent label:

  • Before the label really gets on its feet and pulls in good artists, thus establishing a roster of performers;
  • Which signs up-and-coming but at-the-time-non-notable artists who then go on to a major label and become better known; or simply
  • That took a chance on a group they really shouldn't have which then goes on to do nothing of note.

The history of the record label the group is signed to has little to do with the notability of the group, IMO. I have similar, though slightly more muted, feelings about the major label criterion, too: if a major label picks up a crappy group which doesn't get rotation, doesn't get attention, doesn't go on tours, doesn't win awards, has no really notable members, etc., the fact that BMG screwed up and signed them simply isn't that compelling to me. I feel as though this one criterion really lowers the bar significantly, and that most groups who accomplish any of the other criteria have probably accomplished this one, but the opposite is not at all true. In my opinion, accomplishing this single criterion (especially the independent label part, but again, really, the whole thing) does not on its own establish on its own the notability of a band, and because a group only needs one of these criteria to be deemed notable, would suggest it is too weak to stand in WP:MUSIC. I would therefore suggest its removal from the list. If a group cannot also accomplish other feats on this list (which, c'mon, college a cappella groups don't have a hard time clearing), they should not be considered notable, regardless of whom the group has convinced to press their albums. JDoorjam Talk 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDEPENDENT LABELS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendheart (talk • contribs)

... yyeah, the nature of every single criterion for notability for every category is discriminating against something, isn't it? Does no one have an opinion about this one way or another, aside from Legendheart, who is named after, wrote an article about, and is now heatedly trying to defend from deletion an indie record label? JDoorjam Talk 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I would oppose your suggestion. We go by notability of the artist, not the album directly. Albums are essentially a type of sub-article, and generally appropriate if there's more than should fit in the main band article. Also, the "two album" rule is one of the oldest and widest used rules, and this guideline should reflect what's been widely accepted. The rules try to delete unheard of bands, known only to family/friends. But we're not trying to go to the other extreme, to be Britanica. You're suggestion would open AFDs to most of the music bio/album content of Wikipedia. That's a bad thing. Generally, anybody with two albums (or even one) on a major label is assured of having adequate independent coverage, to write a good article, of interest to more then those close to them. Also, the two-album rules, as imperfect as it may be, is thankfully one of the few objective rules we have. We don't need to waste our time with AFDs on a majority of our (already established WP:MUSIC qualified) artists, which is what your proposal opens up. It's true artists who have two albums on a major label, almost always meet another criterion, but often that other criterion, is not made clear in the first draft of the article.--Rob 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Classical music

The current guidelines are mostly inapplicable to musicians in working in classical music. I'd like to suggest the following (which could be hived off to their own criteria page if necessary):

  • Has made recordings for a company with international distribution.
  • (for conductors) Has held a music director / principal conductor position with at least one orchestra of national or international reputation
  • Has on several occasions publicly performed or recorded with orchestras, ensembles or other musicians who are notable.
  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.
  • Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
  • Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award.
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition. A major music competition is one that attracts competitors internationally, and is judged by musicians who have had major international careers, and has a history of producing winners who go on to major international careers.
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.
  • Has been featured mutiple times in magazines, newspapers or periodicals with national or international distribution.

Grover cleveland 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. All your criteria could apply for any type of performer, doesn't seem very classicly focussed. Much of what you wrote, already is in the guidelines. Could you explain an example of somebody who you would like to have an article for, but can't right now? Keep in mind "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media..." in the current guideline, was intentionally crafted to include people outside of the popular music mainstream. I suspect any notable classical musician already meets this criteria. -Rob 15:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... the existing criteria could easilly be applied to living classical musicians... where it's true that they may not have a lot of CD sales, but notability can be determined by awards won, media coverage and reviews of their work, their works being performed by major orchestras and broadcast on NPR programs (in the US at least), etc. As for dead classical musicians, though, obviously it might be hard for them to meet WP:MUSIC if they lived quite a while ago, so I think WP:BIO is more appropriate. Does anyone still remember them? Are they still being written about? I'd settle for simple verifiability - if reliable sources are still writing about a guy who died in 1780, to me that's pretty notable. --W.marsh 14:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"prominent representative of a notable style"

This was discussed once before, but I was curious if people's thoughts had changed at all. I think we should do away with the "prominent representative of a notable style" bit. My reasons are twofold: 1) I've seen it invoked only by self-promoters and non-believers in WP:V, never for legitimate purposes, and 2) Any band that actually qualified under this clause would surely already meet some of the other criteria. So, I think that in actual real-world usage, this criterion has a somewhat negative effect with no positive effect to offset that. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine either way. It's basically moot. If somebody can cite sufficient reliable sources, that clearly prove somebody is a "prominent representative", that very coverage qualifies them under "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". So, I say, if nobody objects, remove it, but if anybody does seriously object, probably leave it. Curious: do you have an AFD example of where you feel it was misused? --Rob 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm personally wary of removing anything that will make it less likely that a group would meet the standards, but I'm open to examples as well. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it should be removed. If a musician is truly a prominent representative of a notable style, then he must have either recorded albums or played concerts. If he hasn't done either of those, how can he be considered prominent without original research? Examples like Ravi Shankar, Yo Yo Ma, and Miles Davis come to mind. They are prominent musicians but are already covered by other requirements. I don't see any use for the phrase except to squeeze non-notable bands through a loophole. Kafziel 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One I remember seeing recently was the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-C mess. However, now that I look again, I see the part of the guideline invoked was actually "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre", which is pretty close to the same thing. My memory tells me I've seen similiar claims before, but I admit I cannot say where, exactly. I think Rob got it exactly right above- the way we'd know this would be from coverage in sufficient sources, which is already grounds for inclusion by itself. Many people with unverifiable vanity articles defend them by asserting that that they're the most important polka band in Podunk or whatnot. I'm not saying these claims tend to be successful, they usually don't- I just think having this explicitly in the guideline encourages such nonsense and wastes people's time. Friday (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we hedged it a bit by saying something along the lines of is established to be a prominent representative of a notable style by at least one third-party reliable source. This way, it can remain valid, especially if it's a more niche genre/style, but doesn't duplicate itself in the "multiple non-trivial sources" clause. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think any single reviewer or writer can establish a musician's prominence in the music world. Ticketholders, record companies, and other musicians determine that. Citing a single source that likes the band doesn't mean they're prominent.
Besides, is that if your podunk band is blazing a new frontier in jazz-punk-blues-influenced aborigine-style harmonica playing, but you've never been signed to a label or played a concert, perhaps an article on Wikipedia should not be your primary concern. :) Kafziel 19:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle - that shouldn't be their primary concern. However, if some band called Goat Head Flavored Iced Tea is the most prominent group playing freeform industrial jazz in Joe, Montana, they're going to be notable for that, but won't get multiple media mentions because there aren't a lot of media sources that'll discuss freeform industrial jazz. This part of the guideline isn't going to help include your typical guitar/bass/drums band that plays the bar every Friday night, but is designed to help with inclusion of bands that have no shot of entering the mainstream as typically known. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Am I interpreting your remarks correctly, that you want to find a way to include the most prominent group playing freeform industrial jazz in Joe, Montana, despite a lack of media coverage?? I don't get it- you don't believe in verifiability? That's the one thing (I thought) we could all agree was non-negotiable. Friday (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I got out of that statement, too, and I definitely have to disagree. Being the most prominent band in a particular locale (even a town of many thousands) is not, in itself, notable. In my town, with a population of around 25,000, probably the most prominent rock musician is Bill Perry. Note the red link. He's been playing for twenty years or so, sells out whatever venue he plays, tours the country, has several self-produced albums... but he won't be notable enough to include here until he gets signed or gets an article in Rolling Stone, which he doesn't want to do. That doesn't diminish his kick-assness as a musician, though, and sneaking a vanity page onto Wikipedia through a backdoor won't make him any more successful. That's what myspace.com is for, isn't it? :) Kafziel 19:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if Bill Perry "has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media", then he definately should get an article, even if that doesn't include Rolling Stone, even if he's not not signed to a record label. Our criteria is notability, not fame. --Rob 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC) On re-reading what you said, and doing a quick google, it seems Bill Perry easily qualfies for an article, on more then one criteria. Hopefully somebody will make such an article . --Rob 20:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I suspect there's more than one Bill Perry: AMG has quite a lot on a guitarist/singer/songwriter by that name. Friday (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yah, after I looked at the one I found in AMG further, I realized it must be completely unrelated to the unsigned artist referred to above. --Rob 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The Bill Perry I was talking about heads the "Bill Perry Blues Band". He gets a few hundred hits on Google and might technically qualify as notable, but I've never made an article for him on general principle, because I think the requirements are too lax. Anyway, my point is, he's the most notable musician in my town but that doesn't make him notable enough for Wikipedia without the other qualifiers. Kafziel 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Not to be a nitpick, but if he's toured the country, he meets the music standard. But yes, if he's the most prominent rock musician in your locale, then I wouldn't protest his inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that if Charlie Newsperson in Joe, Montana reviews GHFIT and says "GHFIT is the promintnet freeform industrial jazz group in Joe," then that would make them notable. It's verificiation. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree. It would prove he exists, but wouldn't prove he's notable. By the same token, not every person who has ever appeared on television is notable; yes, you can verify that they exist, but that doesn't mean they're important. Kafziel 21:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So why isn't he notable? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Badlydrawnjeff, you appear to want to set the bar pretty darn low. The locale thing just isn't workable. How big does the "locale" have to be? I'm certainly the most prominent rock musician in the house where I live, just ask anybody. Does this count? I might even be the only guy on my block in a working band, I don't know. As Kafziel says, we need to verify more than the mere existance of a band in order to write a useful article on them. Friday (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the locale should be a medium-to-large size city. Joe, Montana was certainly an extreme example. But I'll give you a good example from my home locale. We have a band out here called The Deadites. They don't tour outside of Massachusetts, they don't release albums, and they occasionally get a writeup in the local paper (singular). But they are the only gothic techno band in the area, period, and are considered, by the local paper, to be the prominent electronic group in the area. Worcester is the second largest city in Mass, the third largest in New England. Why not them? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, to go by standards we apply to other things, they're a strictly local interest topic. Kind of like being a city councilman. You might get mentioned sometimes in local papers, but if that's all you've got, where's your significance? It seems silly to give them preference over all the other local working bands in the area simply because they play a different style of music. I'd want mention in multiple reputable sources, and here I generally mean music media, not just the local paper. Heck, the high school talent show is in the local paper, too. Friday (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I want multiple mentions in reliable sources. But, there's no need for it to specifically be music media. Actually, non-music media, is a better indication of notability, in some ways, as it indicates non-fans think the person is signficant. There's nothing wrong with the local newspaper *if* its independent (some towns are so small, nothing is independent), and the single paper isn't the sole source. On the issue of independence, let's remember the big music media are often less independent from the music industry then are some local media. --Rob 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
As I noted though, that's insanely biased against bands in non-mainstream genres. That helps nothing, and that's why this is here, I'd imagine. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's specifically because they play a different style of music that sets them apart, and makes them more notable than other bands in the area. I can name 5 bands with a similar local fanbase, but have nothing special about them and aren't ever considered the prominent example of their genere. That's why the clause is here in the guideline, and I'm not disagreeing that an adjustment may be in order, but a removal isn't really the answer. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
So, another band that comes along later and plays similiar music makes the first band LESS significant beause of it? This makes no sense to me. My own band is the only one in town that has those exact members in it, this makes us unique, just like everyone else, right? Friday (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying that the Beatles are now less significant due to 40 years of copycats. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think my original thought in adding that criterion was that some notable scenes, especially stuff like Azeri hip hop, may be clearly notable, and I think it's reasonable to say that a notable genre has to have at least one notable performer. The most notable Azeri rapper may meet other criteria, but not in an easily verifiable manner for the average Wikipedian. It wasn't meant to apply to some local rock scene in a small American town, where someone's notability (if they have some) should be fairly easily verifiable. Still, maybe that criterion is more trouble than it's worth. Tuf-Kat 22:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I have no problem with streamlining it somewhat to have some sort of base population factor and basic third party source. Removing it doesn't appear to be a strong idea, though. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the input thus far would seem to indicate that it is a strong idea. It's pretty early in the discussion, but three editors (Friday, Rob, and I) think the criteria should be multiple mentions in notable sources at a minimum, and one editor (badlydrawnjeff) thinks it should stay as is. I'm not entirely sure of Tuf-Kat's stance, so I won't categorize his input, but he doesn't seem particularly supportive of the lower standards thing. Kafziel 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's premature to be doing something as un-wiki as voting but add my name to the list agreeing so far that the criteria should be tightened, not loosened. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean strong consensus wise, I meant strong in theory/practice. We do plenty of dumb things via consensus, and this wouldn't come close to some of the more major mistakes, but the strength of the idea has nothing to do with consensus. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Competitions

I suggest that the criterion for compettions specify that there must be a strong record (at least 50%) of past winners of such competitions going on to establish notability in other ways. Many self-promoting musicians (at least in European classical music) have winning or placing in such a competition as their only plausible claim to notability, and I want to get rid of their vanity articles. If the musician only placed in the competition, then there has to be a similar record of 50% of musicians who placed similarly going on to notability. Here's the proposed amendment:

Has won or placed in a major music competition, provided that a majority of musicians who won or placed similarly in that competition in past years have gone on to establish notability in other ways.

Thanks for your comments! Grover cleveland 15:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with this. The current standard is "major musical competition," and that's more than enough for me, personally. It wipes out non-notable Battle-of-the-Bands-style stuff, and keeps it to notable contests. Sure, some will still end up at AfD, but so what? And especially in classical music, which gets less mainstream coverage than pop music, it certainly doesn't hurt the encyclopedia to have more classical musicians. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I would oppose such a change. I think the current wording is sufficiently restricting. By definition, a major music competition isn't something anybody can win. Our guidelines are designed to stop undiscovered, unheard of people using us for free publcicity. Obviously, these people already have got publicity, are already known, and already recognized as successes (even if it didn't last). So, there's essentially no reason for deletion). A fatal flaw of th oe proposal, is in most cases, it would be impractical to go over past winner results and determine objectively if the arbitrary 50% standard was met. --Rob 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem is defining what is a "major musical competition". Perhaps setting a number like 50% is somewhat arbitrary, but there must be some way to say objectively to Joe Bloggs, who has just placed 3rd in the NoName Competition, "Congratulations, but that doesn't make you notable, because you didn't win a major competition". Almost any musician who is interested in self-promotion is capable of winning some competition or other. Heck, I've won competitions in the past! If giving a number like 50% is too rigid, we perhaps should give some guidance for what is a major competition and what is not -- perhaps via examples. Grover cleveland 16:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
For contemporary competitions, I would probably define it as major, if the competition (and the performance of the bio subject) was broadcast nationally or internationally. In some sense, its less important if a person wins, then how many people see and care that they've performed, and what, if any, reliable sources wrote about the bio subject. It's really the attention given to the bio subject in the competition that counts. A competition may have been around for a while, before being broadcast nationally. So, the track record of winners, could be a poor indication. There are probably some other good indications of being major, so, I'm wary of overly defining it. --Rob 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gold Criteria and Country Size

First, the current wording is relative to the artist's country. Specifically, in the US, the RIAA sets gold at 500K copies and platinum at 1M copies. In contrast, the "gold" standard can be much lower in other countries. -- Robocoder 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Second, it is ambiguous as to what criteria classifies a country as large or medium. Is it population or area? And for the record, what is that magic number? -- Robocoder 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's meant to be ambiguous. Since AfD works on consensus and not rules, we don't have to, and probably shouldn't, define it strictly. Tuf-Kat 05:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Why exactly is the country size relevant at all? Ansell 07:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

After coming across a reference to "Speedy per WP:MUSIC" for the umpteenth time today, I'm coming to the conclusion that this page should be deleted. It's not a speedy criteria, that's written in the first paragraph, yet people, including some admins, treat it like one. Hundreds of articles must have been inappropriately speedy deleted because of this, all so people can type "Delete per WP:MUSIC" in AFD "debates" rather than outline their reasoning. Maybe I'm missing something here and there is a compelling reason for it to kept? I'm aware also that by asking here I'm asking the group of people most likely to want it kept but I thought it would be a good idea to get people's opinions before nominating it for deletion. Leithp 11:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's bad phrasing. Bands that don't assert WP:MUSIC nobility can unfortunately be speedied under speedy deletion policy under section A #7. But this does have numerous flaws that need to be fixed, you are right. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that A7 covers any assertion of notability, not just those outlined on this page. The music notability guideline should have nothing to do with speedy deletion. Leithp 13:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
And it technically didn't. This is a notability guideline, and when it comes to "nn bands," this is typically the benchmark used. It was deleted CSD A7, it was simply incorrect justification. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There's no way this is going to be deleted; it's an important guideline. People may misuse it, but articles don't get speedy deleted simply based on the nominator's rationale. Articles get speedy deleted because the administrator doing the job looks at them and decides they meet the criteria. Kafziel 15:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have with this page is that I come across bands that do assert notability, "they were influental" or "of major importance to the foo music scene", but because the pages don't back it up to WP:MUSIC guidelines they get tagged speedy and an administrator deletes. I'm not saying that this page was intended to shortcut the CSD and AFD, but the way its being used just now is exactly that. I think deleting this page would put a message across that you should be 100% certain before you tag or delete. I appreciate that this may sound a bit drastic but I don't really see how else the situation will improve. Leithp 15:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem you're describing lies with the administrators, not with this guideline. Kafziel 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but unfortunately the chances of me getting this point across to the 1000 or so other admins is pretty slim. But if the guideline is deleted then there is no potential for misuse. At the moment I think that the harm resulting from this page outweighs any benefit that it may produce. Leithp 15:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, once the toolserver is back up, I'm hoping that we can transfer all CSD A7s to the prod system. Hopefully, that will fix the problem. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: "the harm resulting from this page outweighs any benefit..." I would ask you to spend a few months on the New Pages patrol before making that kind of judgment. The implementation of this page may not be perfect but it's far better than the chaos we had before. Rossami (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done new pages patrol and I think that the CSD covers all the obvious cases. If it's not obvious then you need to AFD or PROD, all this page does is provide a way of people to vote quicker on AFDs. I'm looking for people to spend more time thinking about their votes. I'm also trying to eliminate the idea that this forms any part of the CSD. I view any mistakenly deleted article as a very_bad_thing. It tends to scare off newbies and destroys people's work. If we can help eliminate that and the only downside is that people need to spend a minute or two longer voting in some AFDs then that sounds fine to me. Obviously I seem to be in a minority here, though. Leithp 09:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Place for mentioning candidates for deletion

Is there a page on Wikipedia where we can bring up articles about musicians who may not be sufficiently notable? Shawnc 06:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Two or more albums for a major label"

This seems a bit arbitrary to me. If a band recorded one album for a major label that means they signed to a major label. That's all we need, surely. A big record company has spent a sizable part of its limited annual budget on getting musicians together, booking studio time, etc. At this point we have to admit that it isn't just a garage band and we should try to write something about it in this encyclopedia. I have accordingly changed the word "two" to "one". --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, and your change. Also, as a practical matter, bands with one full album on a major label, just aren't deleted, despite nominations citing the famous "2 album rule", as they'll usually meet some other criteria, such as adequate media coverage. --Rob 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the change pending more discussion here. There was a fair amount of discussion (now in the archives) that led to setting the standard at "two or more". That decision ought not to be set aside casually.
As Rob says, most times the distinction will be moot because such a band will usually meet one of the other criteria already. We must, however, consider the situation at the margin. If the only criterion which the band meets is this one, where should the threshold be given our mandate to write useful, verifiable articles? Rossami (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You have a fair point of the flaw of having any album rule, but why is "two" better then "one"? With almost any criteria, there's the danger of a one-sentence substub, that declares notability, but then says nothing else. Personally I think the only criteria really needed is "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published...", which is the best ensurer of useful verified content. But if we're going to have an "album rule", we might as well dispense with the arbitrary "two". Essentially, I'm saying your concerns are justified, but are not related to Tony's change, which you reverted. Also, while the change is moot in regards to final outcome, I do see an advantage of the change: It avoids the case where a well meaning nominator nominates "one album major label" band, thinking guidelines require deletion, only to have most people vote keep, due to other criteria, that's almost always met for such bands. --Rob 06:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with tony on this. Major label is major label, and it's almost certainly going to carry extra cahce regarding getting media mentions and likely a major tour. It'll save a lot of problems from developing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 06:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If a band manages to have one major label record but doesn't meet any of the other criteria, I don't see how we can have an article on them. Personally, I'd agree with ditching the album requirements altogether in favor of major media coverage. However, a local band getting a writeup in a local paper is not "major media coverage" IMO. Friday (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Useless standard

It seems that any band can have a case made for notability, if they can dredge up any mention in a magazine. Marginal cases should be marginal. One recent marginal case on an AfD was rated srong keep. If we are not going to use this standard, lets make an AfD for the music notability page, and lets start the The Mitch Match and Liz Erd Holiday Inn Duo page. Dominick (TALK) 14:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which case you're talking about, but I see bands getting deleted all the time due to not coming close to meeting this guideline's expectations. So it does appear to be doing something. Friday (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Record labels don't have to do much to get any band in its stable listed on wikipedia. I was questioning that. There ought to be a stronger threshold. If the band never did or does not now make a living playing, it should not meet WP:MUSIC. Dominick (TALK) 14:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Making a living off of music does not always make you a musician. I've seen people on the Waikiki strip in Honolulu, HI, making money while bumming,. Most of them would play bellow average, and you could tell that only a few had ever practiced before in their lives. So making an income off their music does not always tip off that a musician/band is "notable". Smile Lee 06:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Consider these guys: Trash (band). Their only claim to notability is a concert review in Sounds (magazine) that was so bad they broke up. Does that meet notability criteria? -- Richfife 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No. If they had at least two media mentions, yes -- or at least it would be debateable. Tuf-Kat 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd further say that the media mentions should have to be in national media. It's trivial for a minor musician to get written up in his/her hometown newspaper a couple times. Phr (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible methods of Pin-Pointing a Local Musician/Band is "Notable"

  • They have more than 4 songs made, and have had at least one played on a regional radio station.
  • They have appeared in a live performance as a band and performed works of their own on a stage.
  • They have song samples on hand.
  • Some form of band owned website, the band owned website needs to have info on the band, and it's member(s).
  • And lyrics on hand, and the lyrics must be understandable with thoughtfulness obviously put into them.
  • They must also have plans to expand outside of their region.
  • The band must have a fanbase of more than 200 on their website(s).

What do you guys think? Smile Lee 07:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Except for your first bullet, none are functionally verifiable. Well, I guess the existence of the band's website (bullet 4) is verifiable, but self-reported material is never considered a reliable source. I don't see how your suggestions could be implemented and stay in compliance with our core policies. Rossami (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

-They can be verified-And taken as proof-

  • They have more than 4 songs made, and have had at least one played on a regional radio station.
This one is easily verifiable, as said.
  • They have appeared in a live performance as a band and performed works of their own on a stage.
This could be verified by either; by a large number of people (more than 20) all in consensus that they have seeen a band, or by a non-biased news source.
  • They have song samples on hand.
This is a given, this is proof that songs by them do appear, and that there are recordings availible
  • Some form of band owned website, the band owned website needs to have info on the band, and it's member(s).
Their website may contain information from the band themselves for verifiability, a total number of individual visits, and could halpe the live performance thing with fan comments/accounts.
  • And lyrics on hand, and the lyrics must be original works attributed to them.
You can tell when somebody is not writing with feeling. If a person just has nonsence in ALL of their songs you can tell.
  • They must also have plans to expand outside of their region.
If the band took the time to send a sample to a radio station, then they are most likely attempting to breakthrough to the masses
  • The band must have a fanbase of more than 200 on their website(s).
And as said you can see this in the total number of visits to a site.

Smile Lee 07:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with Rossami, this isn't verifiable without doing what we consider original research. Generally the only way you can make a complete, reliable, neutral article is if it "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". If it has, than the coverage qualifies it for inclusion. If it hasn't, than we're relying on the say-so of individual editors (e.g. "yah, I saw 'em, really I did"). And incidently, we *can't* independtly verify the number of visits to an external web site in the vast majority of cases. --Rob 07:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mind you this would not replace previous statments, this would just be like the bare minimum for notability.

You guys are also more than welcome to add on, or make clear the guidelines if you wish.

  • They have more than 4 songs made, and have had at least one played on a regional radio station.
  • They have appeared in a live performance as a band and performed works of their own on a stage.
  • They have song samples on hand.
  • Some form of band owned website, the band owned website needs to have info on the band, and it's member(s). As well as information on upcoming events, and updates from the band. The website could even be something as simplistic as a Myspace, but it must be under the music portion of it.
  • And lyrics on hand, and the lyrics must be original works attributed to them.
  • The band must have a fanbase of more than 200 hits on their website(s). And this must be verified by the host or by a website traffic checker.

Smile Lee 07:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is effectively any band at all. 200 hits on a website is nothing. Every band with an original song is notable? Every band with a website that's regularly updated? Agreed with others that these are inappropriate because they are not verifiable without original research, and even if they were, they'd be too loose. Tuf-Kat 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not every band that has written a song would be used, I said it as a multiple, as in works. And no, not every band falls under these categories. Most "garage bands" do not make websites, record their music, most garage bands don't even make their own music they just play their own versions of previous songs, most "REGIONAL" radio stations would NOT play them, and most definately they do not all have fanbases. Smile Lee 17:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How about that in order to fulfill these minimum requirements the artist/band would need to fulfill 5/6 requirements. 

   * They have more than 4 songs made, and have had at least one played on a regional radio station.
   * They have appeared in a live performance as a band and performed works of their own on a stage.
   * They have song samples on hand.
   * Some form of band owned website, the band owned website needs to have info on the band, and it's member(s). As well as information on upcoming events, and updates from the band. The website could even be something as simplistic as a Myspace, but it must be under the music portion of it.
   * And lyrics on hand, and the lyrics must be original works attributed to them.
   * The band must have a fanbase of more than 200 hits on their website(s). And this must be verified by the host or by a website traffic checker.

71.37.159.19 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Four songs? Lyrics they actually wrote? These standards are so low we can reduce them to holding a mirror up to the nose and seeing if it fogs. Dominick (TALK) 20:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how local notability should qualify for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. To me, the adjective "local" cancels out notability. I feel the current standard we have is acceptable. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


American Idol Underground question

One of Wikipedia's standards for notability is to have won or placed in a major music competion. American Idol Underground have competions of their own. If a popular AIU contestant has:

1. Gained a lot of radio spins on American Idol Underground

2. Won an AIU competion

And also completed a few of Wikipedia's standards for notability, can they also have their own articles as well? I am not saying that every single AIU contestant has to have a Wikipedia page, just notable ones. Thanks! Fanficgurl 2:39, May 24 2006 (UTC)

I don't think AIU would count as a major competition. But a winner of it (or anybody) could qualify if they meet other rules like "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". Has this web site or its paticipants gotten any substantial media attention? The fact they had success with AIU probably would neither hurt nor help them in an AFD. But if their success in AIU led to media coverage, then that coverage would help them. --Rob 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Satellite

Does airplay on XM Radio or Sirius Satellite Radio count for notability by an artist?
It helps, but is not in itself sufficient. Tuf-Kat 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely discriminatory

So, bands can't log themselves on here at all, for any history whatsoever, unless they've already made it... How disgusting. Independent artists now have to consign themselves to working with the RIAA which many do not.... Pathetic... Truely pathetic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.250.220 (talk • contribs)

On the contrary, it is completely required because we hold ourselves out to be an encyclopedia. We are not MySpace or Everything2. We are an encyclopedia - by definition, a tertiary source which synopsizes the verifiable writings of independent reliable sources. If no such sources exist, then we can not accept an article on the topic. We are not here to support or promote any one group or organization. Please take the time to read the applicable policies to understand why these principles are so important. And welcome to Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to add that if you want to document hardly-notable independent releases, do that at Discogs.com. AlexFolland 02:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

iTunes?

I was thinking, could the iTunes Music Store be a determining factor for notability? Maybe for just arists (too many albums and songs ... actually, maybe for albums). An artist is notable if she/he/it is on the iTunes Music Store. What do people thing? Jesuschex 02:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but not yet, not until iTunes actually affects billboard chart ratings.  ALKIVAR™ 03:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Separate entries for band members?

I keep seeing each band member listed for a band, surely this is unwarranted unless a band member has been involved in other projects or notoriety of some kind? In many cases it's merely a duplication on the band's main page--Richhoncho 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't see the problem with it, especially if there's information about the types of instruments they play, information about their lives, etc, that obviously wouldn't fit into a band article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this - a band is a commercial venture, an album (or song) is a product, and much of the rest is marketing. If it didn't involve music, but some other commercial product, for instance, jellybabies, would a separate entry for each past and present director of the company and each flavour of every jellybaby manufactured be warranted? Surely the instruments played in the band belongs on the band page and only elsewhere in the case of "notability." If this was "wikimusic" I wouldn't have raised the question. --Richhoncho 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But, the difference is, that with music, you have often have reviews and interviews by media, that focus on specific individuals, even they haven't done solo projects yet. There's an interest by fans in the personal lives of band members, which gets the media to investigate, and produces verifiable information about it. So, if a band is notable, we tend to have verifiable biographical information on at least some individual members, which we often lack for directors of prominent companies. With corporate directors, media often treat them as simple spokespeople of the corporation, and don't care about the individual (obviously, there are many exceptions). --Rob 06:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Notability for Recordings

Hi folks, Am I blind, or does this page talk only about notability for musicians? Is there somewhere that provides guidelines on notability for recordings? Clearly there are seminal albums and singles that have their place on Wikipedia, but while working through Category:Category needed and categorising stuff I seem to be applying cats to an awful lot of albums and singles I think I should probably be AfDing ... Thoughts, anyone? Help? --JennyRad 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a doctor, and even if I was, I could not evaluate your sight at this great distance.
I also wonder about the notability requirements for music. I asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Mix tapes? about mix tapes and haven't received an answer yet. These "releases" are DIY pressings of low volume, or not even officail releases. Yet there's a category of articles on them, and many others which haven't found their way into the category yet. There are also articles on songs which aren't at all notable, even if they are by a notable artist on a notable album.
If there isn't a standard for notability for songs, mixtapes, and albums, how do we go about creating one? -- Mikeblas 01:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Various ideas for songs, genres and labels have been proposed at one time or another, they should all be in the archives of this page. There's never been a consensus on any of them. So, the way to do it is to propose something that there is a consensus for. Tuf-Kat 03:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Albums are pretty notable no matter what. The general standard has been that all notable musicians get album articles, but not all albums have their songs wikified. It's worked fine overall. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's out of control. There's articles for non-notable songs, and bootlegs, plus complete categories of meaningless mixtapes. -- Mikeblas 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with that? I, personally, see Wikipedia as an amazing idea, but only if it's meant to be a collection of all human knowledge. Information, as long as it's true, no matter what information it is, should definitely be on Wikipedia, in my opinion. AlexFolland 02:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If you think it through, your opinion doesn't scale. What I did today is knowledge; what the seventeenth person through checkout aisle number 7 at Supermarket Chain Store #3923 bought, and in what order they were rung up, is knowledge, too. What the cashier rang up has business use. When I burn a mixtape of my favorite songs to put in the CD changer of my car -- certainly, that's not useful to anyone, is it? It's smaller than minutia. You don't really think that all should be in Wikipedia, do you? So we have to set realistic guides for notability, and acknolwedge that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. And we have to set realistic levels for verifiability, too -- even if only to make sure that it's easy to check something as "true" or not. -- Mikeblas 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You certainly make some good points there. I suppose knowledge that is as extremely ephemeral as that in your examples should not be here, and I was wrong in saying that all knowledge should appear here. However, if new pieces of art were created, should they not be catalogued and documented? The knowledge of art is far from trivial. If someone has spent months or years working on pieces of music, and have released the music to someone for listening at all, that counts for something; enough to be documentable. Besides, most of the "not-notable" bands' information is easily-verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexFolland (talk • contribs)
Problem is, there's notable art (things we've all heard of, things we might not have heard of but are popular and studied and known) and there's not-notable art (school kids making drawings, bands playing in their garage, and so on). There are plenty of not-notable bands whos information is very debateable; I've sat through several AfDs on them. Editors will insist that the band is important, but you can't find any of their records for sale anywhere, on any chart any place, they've never toured, only on one or two websites, and so on. It was when I noticed that these were usually "mixtapes" that I started asking these questions. -- Mikeblas 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Under the Shadow

I was wondering if this would be a qualifiable as an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smile_Lee/Under_the_Shadow If not, please make any suggestions and I will be happy to see if I can help it become Wiki material. The band already has some wikis in french and spanish languages. So I think it's time to put back up the English one. Smile Lee 05:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Send me an angel

'Send Me An Angel' by Scorpions (band) has been covered by many bands including Zeromancer and Thrice as well a few techno groups. Is this notable enough to become an article? please leave me a note on my page cuz there is a lot to sift through here. Avenged Evanfold 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_3&oldid=1137429657"