Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 22

RFC: Notability of some compilation albums

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.

---

Should individual albums that are part of a large series of compilation albums be considered individually notable if they appear on any country's national music chart, or should they be discussed as part of the article on the series as a whole?

This would specifically change the guideline The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. to read The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart, and it is not part of a series of compilation albums. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is specifically motivated by the various Now That's What I Call Music! albums; several recent AfDs have suggested the individual album titles should redirect to the article on the series as a whole. As far as other articles effected, the series of Category:20th Century Masters albums currently doesn't have an article on the collection as a whole, and neither do albums like Billboard Top Country Hits: 1990; either a new article on the series would need to be created as a merge target, or they could be merged to some existing page. WP:NALBUM provides a presumption of notability, and while that works well in practice for albums containing original works, I don't feel that it is useful for these compilation albums, which generally are not the subject of long-term interest. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Each album must meet GNG and NALBUM individually. Seems like an extension to WP:NOTINHERIT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Right now, albums don't have to meet GNG if they meet NALBUM. This is one of the subject-specific guidelines referred to in It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline on WP:N. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, they do. Just because a subject meets NALBUM doesn't mean it's notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm fairly certain that, both according to the letter of the law and in practice, meeting NALBUM is sufficient. If you have an alternative proposal to make clear that meeting NALBUM is not sufficient unless GNG is also met, please feel free to propose it yourself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
        • To satisfy NALBUM the album must satisfy N/GNG. (See the first sentence.) The numbered points only indicate that a recording may be notable (emphasis mine). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Exactly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment, leaning oppose - I understand this idea when it comes to e.g. Now That's What I Call Music!. The albums often do well, but little is written about them other than their charting and other than coverage of the songs we already include in the articles about those songs and/or the albums they're on and/or the artists. In other words, we don't have a whole lot we can say about them, regardless of their charting. A single list of data (tracks, chart, sales) would seem to suffice in such cases. But then there are cases like Love, Peace & Poetry. The idea of each compilation is to compile psychedelic/garage rock from a different country. "World music" (fraught as that term might be) compilations in general can get coverage that other sorts of compilation series do not because they do not comprise tracks that are already well-known in the countries the albums are released in. In short, I can see this applying to "hits" albums like NOW, but I don't know if it's generalizable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The intention was that if these albums get a sufficient amount of coverage, particularly sustained coverage, they would still meet criteria 1, which is not changed in this proposal. Perhaps that is more subtlety than can be expressed in notability guidelines. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think our current standard is easier to interpret than having to decide once something charts if it's a compilation album. We're introducing edge cases where non exists now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think a compilation album is well-defined; it's an album where almost all the songs have been previously released on multiple previous albums. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm viewing this with my WP:NPP mindset. When doing that I'm trying to establish notability as quickly as possible. If something's notable, I can add any cleanup/stub/project tags needed, mark as patrolled and move onto the next article. Now, if an album can be verified as having charted, I feel can good about notability and look for any other issues. But under the proposed revision, I would now have to ask myself is this a compilation album? There is going to be some margin of error answering this question, even though I agree its definition is well defined. And if the answer is yes I then need to establish notability under criteria 1, which requires more judgement than strictly checking whether a claim for criteria 3 is true or not. More judgement means that achieving consensus about inclusion or deletion will be harder with more possible areas that reasonable editors can disagree. I don't see enough of what this change brings in the positive to outweigh what I see as the downsides. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

At this point I'm thinking that Power~enwiki is just wanting an argument. We have two solid arguments against inclusion and one editor siding against, and three complaints from someone who may be forum shopping to get his way. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 66 (U.S. series) or related AfDs, which seem to support not having separate articles, NMUSIC be damned? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT weaponized as policy. Yes, these charting hit album compilations should have articles; this is important cultural documentation that justifiably has a place on Wikipedia. I'm not necessarily opposed to them being merged into larger discographical blocks, but no one even considered trying something like that, which is really indicative of the seriously dysfunctional Wikipedian approach to information about music. Chubbles (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If the album is covered extensively in reliable and independent sources, yes, it's notable. If not, it's not. If not, it could of course still be mentioned in a parent or other appropriate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Walter Görlitz. This is patently not the way to write good SNGs. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - this would violate WP:NOTINHERITED. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment while nobody seems to like this specific proposal, there seems to be a mix between people who feel articles such as Now That's What I Call Music! 78 (UK series) already don't meet the notability guidelines, and people who feel this is a bad way to change the guidelines to exclude these notable topics. I'm not going to withdraw this in the face of borderline-SNOW opposition until there's some consensus as to whether these are currently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What I will say is that articles, like the only you just linked to, contain nothing but a track listing and charting numbers isn't much of an article either. We should avoid permanent stubs like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose more or less per Seraphimblade. A lousy SNF is not improved by layering it with epicycles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a bit divided on this. As albums (the Now! series), they're certainly notable given their high charting positions, but as articles, they're really just piss-poor. Perhaps a track listing of each album might be of value to some people however (which is all each article is really). Maybe there could be some work done on each article - surely there have been reviews of these compilations when they were released, some critical commentary could be included, perhaps some other snippets of info about each one could be found as well. In other words; the albums can have articles since they're notable, but as the articles currently stand, they're practically worthless.Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment just because something is notable, doesn't mean that it must have an article. If we cannot write a decent encyclopedic article about something (like the NOW series), then we shouldn't have articles for them. I agree that making the wording above general policy would muddy the waters, and therefore I would oppose that, however that doesn't mean that we must keep articles that don't add anything. I would say that the NOW series are an exception that should be handled separately. Unless of course, as Tuzapicabit says, more info for a given album can be found. Richard⁰⁶¹² 12:55, 9 May 2018 (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.

I've pulled the RFC, I don't particularly mind if discussion continues, though NOW-specific discussions should probably be done elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Billboard

Is Which Billboard charts are enough to establish notability (as billboard seem to have 1 million and one random charts)?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hot 100 and Billboard 200 are the national singles and albums charts - a top 100 placing in either is a good guide to notability. Beyond that I'd say top 20 in the major genre charts is probably enough. There are quite a few other Billboard charts that don't seem much use in judging notability. --Michig (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I would argue a more restrictive valued of "top five" in the niche charts and placing on the two Michig stated are enough to assume the subject meets notability criteria, but it's always best to find additional sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Any of the sales/airplay charts ought to be enough. Genre and market-specific charts are useful empirical indicators of popularity, and the notability standard here makes no mention of cutoffs. The R&B, rock, country, alternative, jazz, even the new age charts - every artist that hits these Billboard charts is notable. Chubbles (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That every charting artist or work is notable is not supported here. That it may be notable is supported. I agree that we have not codified a cut-off in the guidelines, but I regularly have difficulty finding RSes to support notability for subjects on niche charts when they have (or are) works lower than No. 5. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's ever been true (over the lifetime of Wikipedia). Billboard is, itself, an RS, and virtually every artist that reaches the American charts in most genres gets additional coverage beyond it - certainly in rock, pop, country, dance, etc. The exceptions might be the very-out-of-the-way charts, like indigenous roots music - and coverage by Billboard of such groups, I would argue, should be enough to establish them for notability purposes (WP:SYSTEMIC, for instance, comes into play there). Chubbles (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been true. While Billboard is a reliable source, it's just a chart and does not meet the significant coverage portion required for GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This is WP:MUSIC. The GNG is not required to establish notability - it is one of twelve possible indicators. Chubbles (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

MUSIC defers to GNG, which is why the MOS does not state that the criteria confirms that the subject is notable, only that it may be notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Never has. --Michig (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Then explain why "may be" is in each guideline section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a guideline, a 'rule of thumb', not a rule. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NALBUM defers to N: All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Similar for WP:NSONG: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The conversation thread directly above this one suggests that the wording of those passages may merit revisiting. Chubbles (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We may indeed need to revisit whether the criteria are written as clearly as possible — but just to clarify, NMUSIC is not intended to constitute an exemption from having to get an artist or recording over WP:GNG. Notability still has to be supported by reliable sources, and the NMUSIC criteria only exist to clarify what counts as a basic notability claim if those reliable sources are present to support it. Nominal passage of a criterion in this list is not a free exemption from having to actually get the subject over GNG — no matter what notability claim the topic claims to have, an article can still be deleted if the topic simply doesn't have the reliable source coverage required.
We have seen articles attempted, for example, about people who had apparently had minor hits in the lower ranges of a Billboard genre chart but were sourceable only to their own self-published PR and not to any real RS coverage — and we have seen articles attempted which claimed that their topic met an NMUSIC criterion, but the claim turned out to be either unverifiable or outright false when we tried to repair the referencing problems. So it's not the claim to passing an NMUSIC criterion that makes a keepable article — it's the ability to properly reference that the person or recording has proper reliable source referencing for the claim.
As for which charts are considered to establish notability, see Wikipedia:Record charts. Billboard is certainly the most famous example of a chart that does, but it isn't the only chart that does. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Any claims of satisfying this guideline need to be verifiable, yes, but requiring verifiability and satisfying GNG are not the same thing. --Michig (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Michig's absolutely right, there - we can verifiably establish meeting WP:MUSIC with reliable sources but still not meet the GNG. Otherwise, WP:MUSIC, and any other subject-specific guideline, would all be dead letters. Chubbles (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. NMUSIC exists to clarify what counts as a notability claim for a musician, and GNG exists to clarify how that notability claim translates into actually producing a keepable article. Being able to technically verify passage of an NMUSIC criterion does not translate into an exemption from having to actually pass GNG — NMUSIC is the destination and GNG is the road to get there, and nobody gets a free bypass of the Pass-GNG Highway just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion has been claimed. Musicians do not, for example, get a free pass of NMUSIC's "touring" criterion just because their own primary source website, or routine concert listings or the websites of the venues where they played, can technically be shown — the touring criterion is not passed until journalists have written editorial content about the concert performances. And on and so forth: it's the amount of reliable source coverage that can or cannot be shown about a topic, not its mere existence or its own primary source verification of that existence, that determines whether an article gets to exist or not — NMUSIC exists to clarify what kinds of achievements the reliable source coverage needs to show, not as an exemption from having to have reliable source coverage at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This seems to substitute the GNG for WP:V. The GNG is not sine qua non for having an article on Wikipedia; it is not policy, and should not be. If it were, this page would be one bullet long - the first one. All the other criteria mentioned would be moot, since the presence of multiple substantial reliable sources, in absence of any other qualifying criteria, would be both necessary and sufficient for inclusion. Meeting subject-specific guidelines with WP:V information, even in the absence of meeting the GNG, is crucial to the construction of a robust encyclopedia - on topics musical and nonmusical. Chubbles (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this page. It is ways that GNG may be met, not a criteria that supersedes GNG in the arena of music. GNG is how V is applied. This guideline simply suggests way that a subject may meet GNG, and relies heavily on V. In short, if no one cares enough to write about, we shouldn't either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This page has zero to do with meeting GNG - we have a separate page for that at WP:GNG. Reliable sources provide verification, not satisfying GNG. --Michig (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to write. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and verification in the absence of a GNG pass causes a Wikipedia article to not happen. GNG most certainly is sine qua non of getting a Wikipedia article, because anybody can simply claim absolutely anything if they don't have to prove it — and no, it is not true that "if it were, this page would be one bullet long" either, because a person's media coverage does still have to support something that constitutes a credible notability claim. Even if a band or musician technically passes the charting criterion, for example, it is still entirely possible that we can say nothing else about them that's referenceable to anything but their own primary source advertising bumf about themselves. We have seen articles about bands which claimed a charting hit, but were so poorly covered that it was impossible for our article to even include the band members' names (but an article which can't include such a basic detail is actually worse than no article at all.) And conversely, we do also see people claim that they've passed GNG all the time on the basis of two or three purely local sources that say "local band wins high school battle of the bands competition" and/or "local musician plays open mic at Elephant & Shopkins pub Friday" — so it's not "media coverage exists" or "article claims passage of a notability criterion without sourcing for it", but "media coverage exists in a context which supports passage of a notability criterion". Not one or the other — both things simultaneously, directly and inseparably handcuffed to each other. A band having a Bandcamp page, for example, technically verifies that they exist — but it doesn't get them a Wikipedia article, because it doesn't constitute coverage in a reliable source that's independent of their own PR. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so actually, you are substituting GNG for N. There is no reason to have subject-specific guidelines for notability if the only yardstick for inclusion is the GNG. This, certainly, appears to be a view in the ascendant, and has been for some time, though I of course oppose it. Chubbles (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there most certainly is a reason to have subject-specific guidelines for notability if the primary yardstick for inclusion is GNG, because GNG can technically be "passed" by lots of people who have no substantive reason to belong in an encyclopedia at all — I named several examples in my prior comment of how that can happen, so there's no need to repeat them again. (But I will add that I would qualify to have a Wikipedia article if all I had to show was that two or more pieces of media coverage about me have existed, but I didn't have to show that any of my media coverage actually existed in any context that would actually pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion.) But the same problem also works the other way: if all a person had to do to get into Wikipedia was say they pass a notability criterion, but they didn't have to show any reliable sourcing to demonstrate that anything the article said was actually true, then people could get into Wikipedia by lying about passing a notability criterion that they don't really pass in reality. So it's not GNG or an SNG: it's a GNG-passing volume of coverage that verifies and supports passage of an SNG. Not one or the other: both simultaneously. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• The lead section of WP:N makes it very clear that any topic which satisfies NMUSIC is notable, and does not need to satisfy GNG. That is overwhelming consensus, and no local consensus here will change that. James500 (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, it does not. Both state that a topic is presumed to merit an article. And the idea that a local consensus can't change that is ridiculous: NMUSIC is a local consensus and so it's a circular argument. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • NMUSIC explicitly states that passing an NMUSIC criterion does not guarantee an article in and of itself — as I've pointed out elsewhere on this page, music is an field of endeavour where we have an especially serious problem with aspiring wannabes trying to get themselves into Wikipedia for the publicity by falsely claiming passage of an NMUSIC criterion that they don't actually pass in reality. So the inclusion test is not what notability criterion an article says the subject passes — it's how well that claim can or cannot be referenced to reliable source coverage (independent of the band's or musician's own self-published PR) which properly verifies the claim as true. SNGs always work that way: notability criteria can be, and regularly are, lied about or PR-bumfed — chart positions that the subject never really attained in reality, chart positions on WP:BADCHARTS that Wikipedia doesn't accept as notability-conferring charts at all, concert tours that are "verified" to concert listings calendars but not to evidence that they ever got a lick of media coverage, the notion that Bandcamp satisfies the "two albums on notable labels" criterion in and of itself, the notion that all a band has to do to get into Wikipedia is get written about in their local newspaper twice even if they've accomplished nothing noteworthy at all, and on and so forth, are things we really do quite regularly see attempted in articles about musicians — so the notability test is always still the quality of the referencing that can be shown to support that the claim is true, and never the claim in and of itself in the absence of reliable source verification. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria 2: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Should this not define the size of the chart - I guess I've always assumed this was Top 50 max, maybe even Top 20? Draft:One Lady Owner (band) charted in the 'official' chart for one week at position 98, so the creator may think this passes notability by criteria 2, but comparing it to the other criteria a week at 98 does not appear to be in the same ball park. So should this criteria not have a qualification on what actually counts? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

We've been trying to do that for a long time but some editors steadfastly refuse and use the circular argument that the guideline states only "chart". Others have argued that WP:GNG is the underlying principle, and if the album's charting did not garner secondary press for the band, it's not enough for an article. That would apply here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely oppose some arbitrary cutoff. Reaching a chart is a solid indicator that a musician has reached a level of prominence consistent with inclusion here; even at the lower rungs, that's a more or less bona-fide indicator that one has made it past "garage band" status. It's similar to NSPORT's notability threshold of reaching a major league - even a single game at that level is an indication of having met a threshold of prominence such that an encyclopedia of the subject would/should include the athlete. Chubbles (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Chubbles: I don't see them the same really, to play a single game in a major league you have made it into a limited number of games in a limited number of teams in a league. For countries with a Top 200 instead of a Top 40 its like allowing a player who has a game in a minor league in those countries. Also this is for a single not an album which would mean the number of sales to reach 98 is probably really small. In this case the "Official UK Charts" lists 100, but also still mostly refers to the "Top 40 chart" so has it reached the "national music chart" or just the extended list of singles that didn't make it? It's not about defining an "arbitrary cutoff" but defining or clarifying what "national music chart" really means, as WP:NSPORT does with defining what a major league is (at least for many sports). KylieTastic (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There's been a lot of definitional work in establishing national charts in the past here - for the US, Billboard is the standard (though Cashbox placements, I think, would also qualify, since Billboard was not always the single industry standard in the US); in the UK, the Official Charts Co. is that standard. The charts are deep because the music industry in those countries is very strong; to reach #200 on the Billboard 200, you'd have to sell several thousand copies of your album in a single week (or have it streamed tens of thousands of times). There's nothing "minor league" about reaching the lower echelons of the charts. The difference here seems to boil down to one of inclusionism vs. deletionism; I think the encyclopedia is stronger when it includes every musician to chart a hit album or single, which I think is actually a better indicator of importance than the GNG; many musicians who chart a hit reach a level of prominence that thousands of musicians who pass the GNG never muster. Chubbles (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm generally an inclusionist, but I never want to accept an AfC draft if it's just going to be AfDed straight away by a deletionist over interpretation of the guidlines. Hopefully the author can find some more info to show notability. KylieTastic (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that imposing an arbitrary cutoff isn't the way to go here. It's entirely possible for a person with only a low chart placement to have enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG anyway, and it's entirely possible for another person with the same chart placement to have almost no reliable source coverage beyond the ability to nominally verify the chart placement via the chart itself. So the inclusion criterion isn't the chart ranking per se, but how well the article can be referenced. If the article can be referenced properly, then the chart placement is a must-keep notability claim in and of itself — but if it can't be referenced properly, then the chart placement is not an inclusion freebie that exempts it from having to be referenced better. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's always possible for people not to meet specific criteria and still pass gng. In which case they are included because of gng. The question should be, does passing a specific criteria show that they are notable regardless of gng. Being number 98 for a week does not. Darx9url (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • There's never any such thing as "notable regardless of GNG" anywhere — there's no notability criterion that can ever be passed just by stating it, such that the person would get an automatic inclusion freebie that exempted them from still having to clear GNG. Music is one of those subject areas where self-promoting wannabes often try to game our rules by lying about notability criteria that they don't actually pass in reality — I've lost count of how many artists have tried to get into Wikipedia by claiming chart positions that proved completely unverifiable, for example, or who've claimed notability because they've toured even though NMUSIC's touring criterion demands not just the existence of a tour that can technically be verified to concert listings calendars, but real music journalists for real music magazines writing and publishing media coverage about the tour. (And, similarly, people have tried to get over WP:NPOL as national heads of state by declaring themselves as presidents of unrecognized micronations. Doesn't work, obviously.) So the inclusion test is not the claim itself, but the question of whether the subject has or has not received enough coverage to clear GNG for the claimed notability achievement. The notability test is never determined by what an article says — regardless of what SNG the subject is claimed to pass, the notability test is always still determined by how well the article can or can't reference what it says. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-notable concert tours

Is anyone policing WP:NTOUR? I'm finding a great deal of tour articles that are little more than set lists and tour dates. I've AFDed some, and PRODed others, but there seems to be hundreds of these around. --woodensuperman 11:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a few I've AFDed if anyone would like to comment:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Thrill of It All Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Lonely Hour Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Kesha and Macklemore
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revival Tour (Eminem tour)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberation Tour (Christina Aguilera)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberation Tour (Mary J. Blige and D'Angelo)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Sessions Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suburbia Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Self-Titled Tour (Dua Lipa)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summer Plays On Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Me Downtown Tour

Thanks! --woodensuperman 15:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I have hit a few of them recently, but I haven't been actively seeking them out. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Individual notability of reality series finalists

Is it possible to establish clearer guidelines regarding when a finalist from an Idol-type reality series should be considered individually notable? I'm aware that criteria #9 on this page was revised a few years ago to say that "an artist may be notable if [he/she has] won first, second, or third place in a major music competition". But obviously, lower-ranking finalists, like Chris Daughtry, Jennifer Hudson, or even someone less famous, like Colton Dixon, can be considered individually notable under the right conditions. It's just unclear what those conditions are. Personally, I feel that the more news coverage a series receives, the more notable its finalists should be considered - a standalone article probably shouldn't be created for someone who placed fifth on Can You Duet or Popstars, but a standalone article probably should be created for someone who placed fifth on American Idol.

I can't speak for international versions of Idol - but the amount of professional news coverage that American Idol receives is so considerable, that I would personally be inclined towards allowing standalone articles for all of the finalists from that particular series (meaning the top 10 to top 13, depending on the season). I'm aware that lots of people feel differently though. And certainly, it's more than reasonable to not have an article on someone who hasn't done anything notable since appearing on the series. But I do feel that if a finalist from American Idol has gone onto release music professionally, or has acted in a movie, or has competed on another reality series, then that person should have their own article, even if he or she has only received significant news coverage within the context American Idol.

I've encountered some editors who have argued the opposite - that an Idol finalist shouldn't be considered individually notable until he or she has received significant news coverage completely unrelated to his or her association with Idol. But this strikes me as an overly high bar. If an Idol finalist has continued to be a public figure in some manner since leaving the series and has received news coverage for his or her professional endeavors, then I feel that the finalist's career should be written about somewhere on Wikipedia. There isn't any clear way to merge that information into the Wikipedia article for the season on which the finalist appeared though.

Apologies that this is so long - I feel like this is an important question though, in need of some sort of community-wide standard. I've seen multiple instances of articles on Idol finalists being AfDed and turned into redirects, after only one or two people have voted - which is a major deterrent against putting any amount of effort into improving these articles. --Jpcase (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It's fairly clear already isn't it. Though these notability guides are guidance and people are free to argue for exceptions to the rule. In my experience the winners of reality TV competitions tend to be allowed articles (after all, they're often awarded music contracts and go off on tour). I hadn't noticed the addition of the "first, second or third place" clause, but fair enough if it's been agreed. As for people like Jennifer Hudson, it's sometimes the case that people who didn't win will go on to achieve success, in which case they'll meet another part of WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG.

The thing we want to avoid is people writing about their mate who's had their 15 minutes of fame on reality TV. Often, we'll want to wait to see if they achieve success, or go back to singing in shopping malls, or their bedrooms. Sionk (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sionk: Criteria #9 used to say "has won or placed in a major music competition", which arguably would have referred to all of the finalists. This was changed a few years ago to say "first, second, or third". But like you say, these are guidelines - and exceptions will be made. I don't think that there are clear standards for when to make those exceptions though. You said that meeting another part of NMUSIC or the GNG would be an indicator - but arguably all of the finalists from American Idol meet the GNG, and consequently, would meet Criteria #1 of NMUSIC. Also, after each season of American Idol, a compilation album is usually released, which features recorded performances by the top ten finalists - the first five of these albums all went gold, and at least a few of the others charted, meaning that all of the finalists from the early seasons arguably meet Criteria #2 and #3 of NMUSIC, and many of the finalists from the later seasons arguably meet Criteria #2 (it's unclear whether being featured on a certified or charted album is enough to satisfy Criteria #2 and #3, or if someone has to be the album's primary artist for it to count). Depending on how one defines "non-trivial coverage", then many of the finalists would also meet Criteria #4, since the top ten finalists always go on a major tour after the end of each season, and several news articles about these tours will usually say something about each of the performers. Finally, all of the finalists could arguably meet Criteria #12 (Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.), depending on how one chooses to interpret "featured subject".

Again, the amount of coverage that a reality show finalist receives will vary depending on the show in question - a finalist on American Idol would arguably meet all of those criteria I just mentioned, while a finalist on a less well-known series probably would not. Which is why I would support having articles on most of the finalists from American Idol (at least from the early, most successful seasons), but wouldn't support having articles on most of the finalists from less notable TV shows. But again, many editors seem to have much stricter standards for Idol finalists than I do. So I'd like to have some sort of consensus established, that way I don't waste my time working on an article that seems notable to me, only to have it redirected by editors who have stricter views on the topic. --Jpcase (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

All participants seem to get a small potted biography these days, on the article about the series (we don't expunge all mention of them from Wikipedia). Whether they are notable outside the series is another matter. Albums are released by the broadcast company, as part of the contract of participating. So the people on the album haven't released it, and the credit would go (in the examples above) to American Idol. Past AfD results indicate consensus to be that all finalists of a reality TV show aren't notable enoguh for their own Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sionk: Past AfD results are extremely inconsistent. I've seen AfDs on Idol finalists who have done little since appearing on the series result in Keep, No Consensus, and Redirect. When dealing with this type of article, there doesn't seem to be much rational determining how an AfD will play out, aside from who votes. And I would have no problem with mentioning the career details of lesser-known Idol finalists on the articles about the seasons of the shows that they were in, instead of creating standalone articles for those finalists, if doing so were feasible. But the way in which the season articles are structured wouldn't really allow for this. --Jpcase (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been more involved with articles and AfDs about UK shows, such as The X Factor (UK TV series) which have, for example, Wikipedia list pages about the finalists. Though as you can see, these often get quite bloated with trivial detail added by young fans. Sionk (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sionk: That seems like a pretty good approach! I'd be open to going that way for some of the finalists, although nothing like that currently exists for Idol, and I most likely won't have the time to create something like that myself. Maybe some other editor can do that in the future.

I'm aware that these types of articles can be subject to cruft - but I also feel like there's a way to write focused and well-sourced articles on lesser-known Idol finalists (see EJay Day for my best effort at doing so). --Jpcase (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• People like Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson have passed other notability tests, such as other NMUSIC criteria and/or NACTOR. It's true that merely being on a reality show and not winning is not a notability criterion in and of itself, but that does not mean that a non-winning reality show contestant is permanently forbidden from ever having a Wikipedia article — a person who doesn't win a reality show can still go on to accomplish something else that's notable enough to clinch an article for the latter reason, so the fact that they didn't win when they competed on a reality show does not militate against creating an article once a different notability criterion has been passed. Perhaps the notability criteria for reality show contestants could be rewritten for more clarity, but they don't actually need to be entirely reconsidered — Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson, who have clean passes of other article-clinching notability criteria besides the one for reality show contestants, are not evidence that there's a problem with the notability criteria for reality show contestants, because "competed on a reality show and lost" is not the notability claim that got them in the door — other, bigger things they accomplished after being on the reality show are the article clinchers. And by the same token, Alaska Thunderfuck didn't get an article just for being on RuPaul's Drag Race S5, but she didn't have to wait until she won AS2 either — she cleared NMUSIC in between the two reality show appearances by releasing an album and making the Billboard charts and getting a GNG-passing level of coverage for that achievement. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Does an engineer on a Grammy-winning record reach the notability requirements if that's his only award?

I came across the Josh Wilbur article tonight. It appears that he gets to claim he won a Grammy because an album on which he served as the recording engineer (not producer or mixer) won for Best Contemporary Folk Album. It didn't win for best production or engineering or mixing or anything like that. Does that mean he's automatically notable enough for an article? Because besides that Grammy, he's nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. I don't know whether to nominate for deletion or not. Please comment. Amsgearing (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If he's specifically credited by the Grammys for his contributions, I'd say so. On the specific example of Wilbur, it's worth noting that that article has been gutted repeatedly and once had much more information, including many more credits (he's produced dozens of hit albums, most of which can be verified through his Allmusic profile). Also, here are some interviews that may prove useful for filling out biographical information: [1], [2]. Chubbles (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that AllMusic is not acceptable as a reliable source, because anyone can log in and add information to it, similar to imdb. Is that not the case? Amsgearing (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not the case. Allmusic has an editorial board (they have published many books), and you cannot log in to edit its website. Chubbles (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware that reviews and news by the actual site staff are considered reliable sources, but according to this page, literally anyone can submit music releases, along with info such as who engineered, mixed it, etc, which is why I thought that section of Allmusic isn't acceptable for confirming notability. Amsgearing (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If you put out a record, you can send them a copy of that record, and they ingest the data listed on that record into their database. The process, as I understand it, is not materially different from what the Library of Congress or WorldCat does, and I don't see, prima facie, a good reason why we would consider it suspect. Honestly, it's a really great resource to use in lieu of having to dig up dusty paper discographies, or actual copies of the albums themselves, to get their publication data. Notability is not conferred merely by being listed, but what they have in their database can help confirm notability if what is listed is sufficiently noteworthy. Chubbles (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so one quick example from the Josh Wilbur page. He's listed as a mixer on Limp Bizkit's Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water. I happen to own a CD copy of that (don't ask). I dug it out and looked at all of the text on the inserts. The man's name does not appear on it once. This isn't that surprising, because if you look at the Allmusic page, there's exactly 52 people listed in the credits. There's also a link on the page where you can submit your own information. That's what I mean by it being a user-submitted information site. Sure, they may go off the copy of the record initially, and I'm sure imdb's info is reliable on movies at first, but anyone can submit additions after the fact and add their name. Amsgearing (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that AllMusic's non-review or non-bio information is not reliable (see entry at WP:RSMUSIC). See also WT:SONGS#Single release dates. —Ojorojo (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

RSMusic disowns Allmusic's genre designations - this is the result of the longstanding plague of WP:GENREWARRIOR. People tried to use Allmusic as a source to sort out genre fights, which didn't work, because genre fights are intractable; AMG's genre judgments are no less controversial than anyone else's. I don't doubt there are mistakes in Allmusic's credit listings. I have found some myself (and to my chagrin, when I user-submitted corrections, they didn't get changed!) If Wilbur's not credited in the physical release, that is a fair reason to remove the credit, in the absence of any other corroborating information. I guess the question then becomes, is that reason enough to question all of Wilbur's credits on the site? (I certainly don't think it's cause for a general distrust of AMG entirely - so count me out of said general acceptance.) Chubbles (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

AllMusic does includes a section where users are allowed to submit their own opinions, and we can't cite those user comments as references for Wikipedia content — but the primary album reviews at the top of an album's AllMusic entry are written by professional music critics and vetted by an editorial board, so those are valid for citing on Wikipedia. That said, merely having one's name listed in the album credits on an AllMusic entry does not bolster an individual session musician or engineer or producer's notability, if their contributions to the album aren't called attention to in the professional critical review part of the entry. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Responding to the original question. I would argue that a single award for audio engineering is not enough for notability. The wording of WP:MUSICBIO is geared toward performers. That usually means that production personnel are at a disadvantage. This is for good reason though. The guy who places the microphones for a recording session is not usually the creative genius. You don't see write-ups about them and mentions are equally scarce. That means they fail WP:GNG. Unless something more than this minor award can be found for the engineer, I don't expect the subject to meet notability criteria. If they've received multiple such awards, that would be a different issue, but it wouldn't be a particularly interesting article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Walter. That was my feeling as well, and I think a nomination is in order. The community will decide, I suppose. Amsgearing (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• A single award for audio engineering is enough for notability. There is no good reason to require multiple awards. James500 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • According to which criteria? The only reason that any award is enough to meet a notability criteria is that multiple reliable sources that are not affiliated with that subject write about the subject at length. If that can be done by winning one award for audio engineering, that must be an exceptional engineer. If there are not RSes, they can win a million awards for audio engineering and still not be considered notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
    • That interpretation of GNG is not the sum total of notability. We have SNG award criteria because an award may constitute 'significant reliable independent coverage' in of itself. If that is the case, we do not need more than one. James500 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • First, you didn't answer the question: which criteria (or individual criterion) are you using to claim that a single award for audio engineering makes an audio engineer notable? Second, the music notability guidelines clearly state that a subject may be notable. Nowhere does it state that the are notable. The reason is simple, the points for each assume that a subject may receive coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. So, you're fooling yourself if you think that notability can be conferred on an individual any other way, let alone by winning an award yet no one else in the industry has heard about the subject and the industry media don't know him at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • The question is irrelevant. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss proposed changes to the guideline. I am telling you what the guideline should say. If (for the sake of argument) it does not say that yet (which would make it inconsistent with WP:N and site consensus), it can be changed. James500 (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
        • You think the question is irrelevant, but your response is simply ignoring actual notability. This is not about changes. The question was what constitutes notability in this case. I'm telling you what the guideline should say: if a subject is not recognized for their award they're in way notable. That's what it means to be notable. It will never say what you hope it should say because it starts from the wrong place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • No single achievement automatically makes someone notable. Some single achievements may make an individual notable for Wikipedia's purposes, but that is because that achievement received widespread coverage in reliable sources. We have established lists of things that may indicate notability as a shorthand for discussions, but such must be considered in a wider picture. I am reminded of the claim (many years ago) that anyone who had inherited a title of nobility was automatically notable in Wikipedia. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, who cares? - Donald Albury 17:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
      • (1) No, the lead section of WP:N makes it very clear that if a topic satisfies the criteria of an SNG, it does not have to satisfy GNG as well. (2) If someone has won, for an extreme example, the nobel prize, who cares whether he has received "widespread coverage" in addition to that? Answer: very few editors, a tiny minority, certainly not enough editors to create consensus. On top of that, GNG says nothing about "widespread". It is entirely possible to satisfy GNG with a single source. James500 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Yet each criteria states "may". The lede carries no weight in light of that. We're not talking about the Nobel prize because every winner of that prize does get widespread coverage. We're talking about the winner of awards that are barely notable and whose recipients are not household names, even in their fields. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP1E applies. If the only criteria that this person may establish notability on is having worked on (engineered, produced, mastered, etc.) a recording that won an award, then no, the person probably is not notable. Good question. Toddst1 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I just step in here. Rather than discuss the regulations of WP, take a look at the article. It's not worthy of any discussion. It's tiny and worthless. Delete the thing outright. Unless a decently-sized article can be written, with RS, then the subject is not notable. Nobody's done that. It seems to me that many so-called "creators" create stubs just so they can add it to their list, without actually putting the effort in to making it a decent article. If they had done a bit more research, then they might have built up a profile on this person and sought out some more sources for other noteworthy work where he's mentioned. As it stands, it's a ONE-EVENT situation. Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Per @Tuzapicabit:, I've gone ahead and initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Wilbur. Toddst1 (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

If Josh Wilbur had himself been the nominee in a Grammy category for his work on the album, then that would be a valid notability claim — though the article would still need to be referenced to more than just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a list of the nominees, because we still have to be able to properly verify everything else the article says about him too. But the mere fact that he worked on an album that got a Grammy nomination in a different category than the one for engineers does not reify into a notability freebie for him — if he wasn't personally the nominee, then merely having a credit on a Grammy-nominated album is not a notability clinch. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for major award?

In this edit, ten years ago, the criteria for major awards got changed from won to won or been nominated. The edit comment was, Surely we do not intend to delete Grammy nominees under any circumstances, but we've lumped a number of national awards into the same category as the Grammys, which I don't think is what was intended.

What got me going on this was a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwasiti, that She has been nominated for a major music award in her country. So, I started looking up if indeed just a nomination is good enough, and what major means in this context. I'm pretty sure it was never intended to mean nominated for any national award. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

That looks to be an award sponsored by a national government arts council ([3]); it looks to be exactly what is meant by a major music award. That it is awarded by a state council rather than the national music industry, I think, is immaterial, and it has the nice side benefit of perhaps doing some work on WP:CSB as well. Chubbles (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that just "won" would be better than "won or been nominated". After all, no one is nominated for a Grammy without meeting half a dozen of the other possible WP:MUSICBIO criteria. The only way a band should be considered notable without meeting any of the 11 other WP:MUSICBIO criteria is if they actually won a major award, IMO (which Mwasiti did). Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Being nominated for a major award is enough, but the question of what is a major award for the purposes of meeting that criterion depends on the extent to which the award generates reliable source coverage about it in media. So it's not enough to just assert that a person has been nominated for a major music award — WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources are who tells us whether an award is notable enough to satisfy that criterion or not. It's true that usually a Grammy or Juno or Brits winner or nominee will also meet other NMUSIC criteria as well — but in the rare instances where they don't (e.g. in some of the specialty-genre categories where "charting hits" and "national tours" aren't really things that happen), the mere presence of their name in the award's articles is still enough of a reason in itself to at least try to reliably source something about them if possible (though admittedly not always a guarantee that we would actually be able to — there are even Juno Award winners for whom I'm having problems finding the sources needed to write anything more than "Juno Winner is a band that existed, ref=self-published website of the Juno Awards themselves, the end".) Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Being nominated for a major award is enough. An award sponsored by a national government arts council is a major music award. James500 (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • First, an arts council is not a major music award. It's essentially a bursary. Second, enough for what? The guideline states that the subject may be notable. If the nomination and award do not garner any press outside of routine coverage, the subject is still not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The extent to which any music award counts as an article-clinching notability claim for a musician is strictly coterminous with the extent to which the media can be shown to have reported the award ceremony as news — it does not count as a notability claim in and of itself if the award is so little covered that its own self-published website about itself is the only source that exists for it. An award is not automatically "major" just because people throw around opinions about its majorness — an award is "major" if the media cover that award as news, and is not "major" if they don't. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Is a top ten song automatically notable?

Should we change WP:NSONG to say that if a song made the top ten it is automatically notable? That seems to be the current practice. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Me (Steppenwolf song). Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No. There are several editors, I am one of them, who believe that it still needs to be written about, and that charting doesn't automatically make it notable. If the song is top ten in an obscure genre, it's likely not to be notable, but if that song stays in the top ten of that genre for a year, it may get a few write-ups. In other words, it became notable by its presence there but its presence isn't a get into notability card.

Other editors assume, as you suggest: if it charted, it's notable. You will likely not get consensus to change based on this ground though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A high chart position is certainly a valid potential notability claim in principle, but an article still lives or dies on how well content about the song can be reliably sourced — the chart position does not confer an "inherent" notability freebie that permanently exempts the sources from actually having to be good. There have been lots of charting hits about which we couldn't actually source any substantive content besides "Sing a Song by Sally Smith is a song that exists, chart position, the end", because the song simply wasn't the subject of any coverage in its own right independent of the nominal verification of its chart position and/or coverage of its parent album, and such songs can still be deleted or redirected or just never have standalone articles about them started in the first place. What actually saves "Rock Me" has less to do with the chart position itself, and more to do with the fact that there's sourceable stuff to say about it beyond just the a chart position in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Concert tour AfDs

A few more AfDs if anyone would like to chip in:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sweetener Sessions
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweetener World Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberation Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandito Tour (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Slide Park Tour
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macadelic Tour

Thanks! --woodensuperman 14:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Is The APX notable?

Hi there! As I read this page I think this might be the place for my question. If not, I am sorry. I've been paid to edit an article for the APX group which is now a draft Draft:The_APX and in the AfD process for some days still: [4]. Before I accepted the challenge I read very carefully about the Music notability instructions and after that thought that the group is notable for 4 different reasons: 1. media coverage, 2. a song in a Netflix film, 3. international concert tour starting soon and 4. their music has been reused by 2 notable musicians (more details in the AfD thread). So please help me to learn more: is this group notable and if not, what needs to happen before an article can be created about them? Jjanhone (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This feels like forum shopping. There's a discussion at the MfD and the primary issue there is not the notability of the band but the use of undisclosed paid editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you replying Walter! I thought the topic was about notability and that is why I asked. I've adviced the band to ask the original editor to confess but it's been a long wait. Jjanhone (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And notability is the underlying question at all AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Anyone: Question about whether or not this person satisfies the notability criteria (specifically, WP:MUSICBIO criterion 1)

A musician friend of mine asked me about creating an article about him. I've edited thousands of articles and created dozens, but I have very little experience with BLPs; I've probably edited like 5 of them since I began editing and I don't recall ever editing an article on a musician. Consequently, I was wondering if others would offer their thoughts on whether or not this person is notable based upon the sources he sent me.

I haven't been paid to do this. I value the integrity of Wikipedia more than I do this friendship, so I don't consider this relationship a COI (given that I've created this feedback thread instead of creating the article, that's probably self-evident). I don't really care about whether or not this article is created; although, if others think he is notable based upon the sources below, I probably will create the article.

These are the sources he provided me that cover him:

1. https://earmilk.com/2018/01/08/joe-jenneman-wants-to-know-your-name/
2. http://xkiramusic.com/joe-jenneman-the-same/
3. https://themusicbelow.com/2018/10/02/the-same-by-joe-jenneman/
4. http://voyagela.com/interview/art-life-joe-jenneman/
5. https://broadtubemusicchannel.com/2018/01/11/joe-jenneman/
6. http://livealittlebitlouder.weebly.com/interviews/previous/3
7. https://www.mlive.com/penaseeglobe/index.ssf/2011/04/dorr_fhn_students_band_togethe.html

For context, I primarily edit bioscience-related articles. I have no clue how to distinguish good vs garbage magazines or online news media because I never cite those kinds of sources. In other words, I have no clue whether or not any of these constitute a WP:RS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Mlive is certainly RS. It's the web presence for a chain of daily print newspapers in Michigan. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've clicked on all the sources you provided and I can't see any that establish notability for a musician. They all seem to say "here is a new musician just starting out". Awards, chart action, major record label attention or similar would give him an article. Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle, I'm afraid.Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

None of "Awards, chart action, major record label attention" is in MUSICBIO point 1. Why is it that music biographies always ignore the notability criteria? Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It does not. Awards are point 8, but the wording is, "has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award" (emphasis mine). It does not appear as though these are major awards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Eh... I don’t really understand the point you made about the sources saying he’s beginning his career implying non-compliance with criterion 1. From my understanding, that particular criterion reflects the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) within the context of a musician); in other words, notability is established via significant coverage in multiple RS. I simply wasn’t sure if these sources constitute reliable sources because, again, I never cite these kinds of sources on WP.

That said, if most of these are RS, then it’s pretty clear that he’s notable because the sources contain significant/non-trivial coverage of him. So long as a topic has significant coverage in multiple RS, a topic is notable; what those sources say about that topic is largely irrelevant for establishing notability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

My point is not to support the subject's notability, only to explain that point 1 doesn't say anything about awards because it's in point 8.

If the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then, yes, the subject is notable. If the awards garnered significant coverage for the subject, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then the subject is likely notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at those sources. One was inaccessible to me, two are just album reviews, three are interviews, and one counts as significant coverage. In addition several are blogs, although I did not try to find out who is behind the blogs. So I would say what you have here does not quite establish notability, but it's close, and there may be other sources out there. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at the sources, and off-hand I would say 'no'. The reliable sources don't say much, and the more in depth stories aren't from reliable sources. So probably not notable. Darx9url (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Bubbling Under means notable?

Any guidance on whether Bubbling Under songs can be considered to have charted and pass N SONG? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I will answer it in my usual way: being listed on any chart alone, including the Bubbling Under Hot 100, is not enough to be notable, only when charting generates press should it be considered notable. We have too many songs, albums and musicbio articles that are empty except for track listings and chart positions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The 'bubbling under' chart is essentially a chart of records that aren't high enough to be in the main chart. If they're high enough in a recognized national chart that's an indication of notability, but if they're just 'bubbling under', probably not. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It is possible, albeit not overly likely, that a song whose only chart placement is on the "Bubbling Under" chart could still clear another NSONG criterion for other reasons besides chart placement, so you may occasionally come across an article about a song which mentions a "Bubbling Under" placement but still has a stronger notability claim for the purposes of having a standalone article. But no, "Bubbling Under" does not in and of itself clear the charting criterion. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for composers...

I have not focussed on articles about music, or musicians, in the past.

Recently, however, I have been working on the alumni of the Canadian Film Centre's various programs, including those who participated in a Slaight Music Residency.

A half dozen residents are chosen, per year, for a nine-month residency, where they are mentored by established composers, like Howard Shore and Marc Jordan.

The program's goal is to take composers and singer-songwriters who are already skilled, already have an established record, and train them in the special skills needed to compose scores for film and television.

Alumni do seem to have successfully transitioned to work in film and television.

So, how to determine if a omposer measures up to our inclusion criteria?

The first individual I worked on is Aimee Bessada, draft at User:Geo Swan/Aimee Bessada.

Would any special purpose music notability guidelines apply to her BLP?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Technically, you want to propose that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers, which is primarily for composers of classical music. Others are "songwriters". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Miss Krystle

Could somebody have a look at Miss Krystle to determine is she is notable enough for an article? I think it should go to AfD. JMHamo (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

She appears to be locally notable, but she meets no music notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is due for a serious clipping of promotional puffery and bad sourcing, but the core demonstrates notability per WP:MUSIC 1 and 7. There's substantial coverage by several independent publications, including East Valley Tribune ([5]), The Arizona Republic ([6]), The Entertainer! Magazine ([7]), and Phoenix New Times, who cover her regularly (e.g., [8], [9]). If the article is sent to AfD, I would argue for its retention. Chubbles (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BAND item 7

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

What's the point of this criterion? "All ordinary Wikipedia standards" includes notability, so this is basically redundant to item #1. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Seems to me one single article might have slipped through on this rule, but yes, of course it's a redundancy. Throw it out!Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• The point of this bullet is to capture musicians who are well-known in specific regional musical cultures but are not well-known outside of them, and who do not tour. Some musicians affiliated with New Orleans jazz or Hawaiian music, for instance, sometimes don't reach the level of national or international media coverage afforded their touring peers, but still become influential within their own milieus. This can be confirmed through verifiable coverage (e.g., a retrospective in OffBeat confirming the prominence of a musician in New Orleans), even if the musician doesn't have major national-media coverage consistent with bullet 1. An example of someone who probably meets this criterion and who doesn't have an article, though he probably should, is Jonny Hahn, who has become a fixture of Seattle's Pike Place Market after busking in it for more than 25 years. [10] Maybe one of these days I'll drum one up for him. Chubbles (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NSONG AfDs

Hello everyone! These AfDs I nom'd concern WP:NSONG in the age of streaming and may be of interest to page watchers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gucci Flip Flops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hi Bich, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/These Heaux. Two of them have been relisted and there's been a mix of !voting; I'm seeking additional editor participation to help the closers (regardless of how you !vote). Thank you! Leviv ich 23:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC about independent sources for academic biographies

An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Greatest Hits

Does a greatest hits compilation of a notable artist have to have hit the charts for it to be on Wikipedia? Or are we now deleting all greatest hits compilations that have not hit the charts/gone gold/etc.? If so, that seems misguided to me Tinman44 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Not if it made the news. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Greatest hits compilations are subject to the same notability guidelines as any other album: if there's significant coverage in reliable sources, it's notable. Charting is never a requirement, although it is itself a separate indicator of notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

In my local news, there is usually one article per week on culture that the author deems worthy to explore. The article is always a list of top 10's and every element in the list is given one out-of-10 rating and one sentence. Is that a notable source to justify the song/album to have its own article? What if that list comes from a strange website? Sociable Song (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

For an analog with video games, see Wikipedia:Notability (video games)#Notability of derivative game releases. --Izno (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Album

Is allmusic.com reliable? Found it used on Collectible Spoons. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It depends what it’s being used for. In the case of that article, it’s being used as a source for its review. Review prose, in this case by Roch Parisien, are considered reliable. However, the genre cloud (Genre: Pop/Rock) and styles cloud (Styles: New Wave, Punk/New Wave) are not reliable. User reviews are not RSes. The credits and releases are considered generally reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Walter is correct about this. If AllMusic posts a staff review of the album by one of its contributing writers, then that's as reliable and valid as any newspaper music critic's review — in fact, most of the contributing writers to AllMusic are also newspaper music critics anyway. However, if an album doesn't have a critical review on its AllMusic page, but instead the page just serves as a straight directory entry confirming that the album exists but saying nothing about it, then nothing in the page would be usable as a notability-supporting reference for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Shapes (band)

Do you think Shapes (band) are notable or should be be taken to AfD? JMHamo (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@JMHamo:. Not from what I see. Most of the coverage is either WP:PRIMARY (press releases or connected) or WP:ROUTINE. One interview looks good, but I could see an argument that even that is routine, local coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Band that has had three songs on two different major network TV shows?

Is a band considered notable if their work has been featured prominently in a couple of major network TV shows? 173.16.162.64 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I find that people understand "featured prominently" differently. Today's culture assumes that if the band's music played during an episode, that they "featured prominently" even if the song is not listed in the credits.

To me it means that the band is discussed in the episode and their music is analyzed. That would mean a program like American Bandstand, Top of the Pops, Soul Train, etc. I suspect some might assume talent shows like American Idol might work, but the performer is highlighted, not the original band.

What does the term mean to you? Which band? Which program? How was it featured? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to permanently remove hatnote to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines

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.

---

This essay, which was drafted by relatively small number of editors, has been used as a means to discourage the creation of articles on albums of classical music that clearly meet the standards of notability at WP:NALBUM by raising the standards beyond this page to an impossibly high level. While that page is technically an essay and not enforceable, it has been used as a justification for WP:AFD (please see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 18 for the latest round of dozens of nominations citing this policy) , and many editors have mistakenly taken it for actual official notability policy (largely because of it's hatnote here). As a result, even articles that have won and/or been nominated for Grammy Awards, or recorded concerts for Nationally broadcast PBS programs, or had many reviews in major publications, or have had entries in other encyclopedias/refernce works have been taken to AFD and have discouraged editors from working in this area. It's an essay that is causing many problems, and to my mind is not a reasonable essay producing good results for wikipedia, but a bad one trying to subvert wikipedia policy at this page at WP:NALBUM and the WP:Five Pillars.4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There is also a discussion about NPOV issues with this policy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#NPOV Problems with recording guideline.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal of the hatnote here at WP:Notability (music) § Recordings per reasons by 4meter4 above and others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I support the removal of the hatnote as per the above.--Smerus (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support It could be appropriate to link to a Wikiproject's advice page on notability for some specific sub-topic if the advice complemented the overarching notability guideline. But in this case, the Wikiproject essay contradicts WP:NALBUM by trying to establish notability thresholds for certain types of albums that are stricter than WP:NALBUM, and arguably even WP:GNG. This is contrary to how notability guidelines are supposed to work. I'll quote again this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult. Colin M (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal of the hatnotes, per Michael Bednarek --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Nothing that I could say could add anything useful to what has already been so eloquently said above.Niggle1892 (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been over a week and the unanimous consensus is to remove the hatnote, so I went ahead and did it.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2019 (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.

Reviewed album makes an artist notable?

Recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrez Bergen, the argument was made that "The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist, or their works." to infer that since a musician's album was reviewed, the musician must be notable as well as the album.

I think this logic is severely flawed. By that logic, just having one of their works reviewed would make any artist notable. If that were the case, every musician, backup singer, sound engineer and producer who participated in recording song or album that was reviewed would be notable.

I don't believe that is the spirit of what is intended. Perhaps a minor revision to this page would clear that up? Toddst1 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If the album was written about it makes sense that the artist is notable as well. The reverse is not the case: not every work by a notable artist or band is immediately notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I generally interpret that notability criterion as applying to the primary artist for a work, although if a given review gives a lot of time to discussing another contributor to the work, such as the producer or featured artists, then I would consider arguments that they are covered by the criterion. If a sound engineer's work is described and evaluated in detail in multiple reliable sources (and by this I mean that they are specifically named as an important contributor, not just that a song that they worked on was reviewed), I see no reason not to consider them notable.

A key criterion in the guideline, however, is that there should be multiple examples of such coverage: this criterion appears to have been met by the subject in the AfD discussion, but you seem to be ignoring that here in your analysis of the the argument's logic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, one review isn't enough, multiple reviews are required. And they have to be professional reviewers, not blogs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Walter Görlitz above, a single review does not automatically make an artist or even a work notable. I would go farther. The comments by Toddst1 seem to assume that if a work is notable, the creator must automatically be notable. An artist with only one notable work, perhaps with only one work ever, should not be automatically notable. However, an artist (in whatever genre or medium) with a body of notable works is therefore notable, even if there is no coverage of the artist apart from his or her works. If there are multiple reviews of multiple works, all published by reliable sources, that discuss the various works in some depth, that should be enough to make the artist notable, regardless of anything else. Of course there are other paths to notability: the WP:GNG always applies, and other SNG provisions may also. But a notable body of notable work should be enough. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if I left the impression that I was saying that. If a work is notable, its creator is likely notable. When I wrote, "one review isn't enough", I meant that for a work. So a single with one review isn't enough to make the work notable and definitely not the creating musician notable. Although, that single might have been produced by a notable musician but the performer may not be notable. In short, Andrez Bergen was saved primarily because Pop Tart (album) existed. It is unimaginable that a single, notable work would not be created by a notable subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• I find it easy to imagine that "a single, notable work would not be created by a notable subject. " In written fiction, which i know more about than Music, the 'one-hit wonder" is a common occurrence. For example, author Tom Godwin wrote only one story that is truly notable The Cold Equations, and we probably shouldn't really have an article about him -- almost all the coverage of him is because of that one story. If this isn't the kind of case you meant, Walter Görlitz then I do not understand your comment. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Depending on the heights of the "hit" itself, a "one hit wonder" can generate an incredible amount of press about the subject and its creator. For instance, after Friday (Rebecca Black song), Rebecca Black would have earned an article. But not all works are that notable, and not all works make a name for the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The Classical Musician Notability Question

I have a question as it relates to classical musicians being considered "notable" for Wikipedia's purposes. I am seeking to create an article about subject Draft:Debbie Brooks. It has been denied twice by two separate editors who claim the subject does not meet the threshold for a "notable musician." Therefore, I seek a third opinion, and would like to explain why I believe the subject does meet the threshold for notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria #6 before that opinion is given.

Now, I do not claim to have written a perfect article, but merely argue that the subject, and other similarly situated subjects, should be considered notable. Maybe my subject can be used as a case study to determine how the current guidelines are inadequate for professional Symphonies and Classical Musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ars Combinatoria (talk • contribs)

The Question

With regards to classical symphony musicians, where should the line be drawn for them to be notable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ars Combinatoria (talk • contribs)

Notability Criterion #6

"Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)"

I believe my subject meets this criterion in multiple ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ars Combinatoria (talk • contribs)

Proposal #1

Brooks is in an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, the Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra. The independently notable members of the ensemble are Miguel Harth-Bedoya and John Giordano (conductor). Therefore, Brooks should be considered notable as a musician per Criterion #6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ars Combinatoria (talk • contribs)

Discussion

• I can't support this proposal, as it would, in effect, make every member of every major orchestra notable, and that seems to go well beyond the current consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This sets the threshold of notability way too low. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• This argument seems to be based on misreading Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians as Is in an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians (an easy mistake to make). Colin M (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Brooks has also been a "reasonably prominent member" of two or more independently notable ensembles, the Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra and Casa Mañana. She is "reasonably prominent" in each notable ensemble because she was the "Assistant Principal" cellist of the Fort Worth Symphony, (the #2 ranked cellist in the Orchestra, a position earned that distinguishes her from a regular section player), and she is also the "Solo Cellist" for Casa Mañana, the #1 ranked cellist in the pit orchestra for musicals. Therefore, under Criterion #6, Brooks should be conferred notability as a musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ars Combinatoria (talk • contribs)

Discussion

• This I can support, as it sems to me to comply with the spirit, and perhaps the letter of the current guideline. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I do not feel this makes her reasonably prominent. Orchestras can be notable ensembles, but their members change very frequently. Pit orchestras are usually not notable ensembles. If her involvement in these were notable it should make her pass WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Þjarkur, But the point of an SNG is to cover cases where a person is probably notable even when we can't easily find GNG coverage. If there must be GNG level coverage anyway, there is no point to having an SNG, as anyone who passes the GNG is notable, whether they pass the SNG or not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes should probably have seperated these two statements. Just meant to point out that I did not find the given example to be a convincing claim to notability. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in this case. Casa Mañana is not an article about a musical ensemble. It is an unreferenced article about an enclosed amphitheatre or auditorium. The article does not even mention the musicians who play there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Cullen328 about Casa Mañana. As for Fort Worth Symphony Orchestra, I still don't think #6 is met. The following wording from that policy is relevant:

• 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.
• This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.

I would say that being a performer in a symphony orchestra is more akin to being a chorus member in a Broadway musical than having a lead role in a major opera house. For reference, The Lion King (musical) has about 50 cast members, which is one of the largest in recent Broadway history. A symphony orchestra (according to our article, anyways) varies "from seventy to over one hundred musicians". The FWSO website lists 14 musicians with the title "Principal", plus a concertmaster and a conductor. Are those 16 people all "reasonably prominent members"? I would lean towards 'no' (do operas have 16 "lead roles"?), but I could see a reasonable debate to the contrary. But the "associate principals"? The "assistant principals"? I think that definitely falls short of #6. Colin M (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A Larger Philosophical Question Regarding Notability for Classical Musicians

An Analogy to Consider

A musician winning a position in a professional, full-time symphony orchestra in America has made a similar-level achievement in their field as an athlete who has made a professional NBA basketball team.

From Cincinatti.com:

“From a statistical chance, it’s probably easier to get into the NBA," said Christian Colberg, principal viola of the Cincinnati Symphony. "It’s a very tough process, a process that sends people to therapists, and that truly changes your life. It’s almost barbaric, but it is absolutely fair.”

Wikipedia:Notability (sports) automatically confers notability to athletes who play in at least one game in the NFL or NBA. Why does it not treat the achievement of major symphony orchestra musician's similarly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ars Combinatoria (talk • contribs)

Discussion

• This seems to be making an all too common mistake about notability -- equating it with worthiness, or effort, or achievement. Yes it is very hard to become even a session player, much less a principle, in a major or even a mid-level symphony orchestra. My sister is a semi-pro trombone player, both classical and jazz, and I know something about what is reauired for such an achievement. (She doesn't make a living at it, she has a day job.)

But notability is not about worthy achievement. It is about whether the world has taken notice of a person or topic. It is about coverage. People can become notable by accident, being in the right plavce at the right time. But when there is a lot of coverage, such a person is notable. And notability has to be based on coverage, because without coverage in reliable sources what can we base a Wikipedia article on?

Like it or not, our society devotes more attention to run-of-the-mill pro athletes, particularly in certain popular sports, than it does to musicians who are not world-class stars. That may be unjust, and not at all reflect the levels of effort and achievement involved, but is the case. An ordinary section player in a mid-level orchestra cannot safely be presumed to have RS coverage, while a player in the pro level of many sports can. Still, I think we go too far with automatic notability in many sports topics, leading to articles that do no more that collect play stats. I would prefer to class sources that only report play results and stats with directory information, as not contributing to notability. But at least we have the stats. What can an article about the average section player in a mid-level, or even a top-level, orchestra say? What sources will it be based on? I fear the answer would al too often be little and few. And for those cases where this is not the case, meeting the WP:GNG should always trump not passing one of the SNGs. That is my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In my view, the purpose of special notability guidelines about people like athletes and musicians (and painters and authors and sculptors and architects and poets and so on) is to serve as a proxy or a sorting tool for quickly assessing the likelihood that a certain person meets the General notability guideline. The bottom line is whether or not the person has been been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That is the type of coverage needed to write an acceptable biography in this encyclopedia. Of course, some symphony musicians are truly notable. However, it is sad but true that a significant majority of them are not notable. Reliable sources pay far more attention to professional athletes than they do to second cellists. If it is any consolation, most aspiring rappers are also not notable, and I have deleted many such articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Precedent related to notability of classical musicians

I searched through the archives of this talk page for discussion relevant to the notability of classical musicians (particularly orchestra members). There's not a lot to go on, but I would say past discussions have been relatively conservative in how they interpret criterion #6 for orchestra members (i.e. maybe the conductor should be presumed notable, but probably not the musicians):

• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_4#Members_of_orchestras
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_1#Guideline_questions
• Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_2#Classical_music_performers

I also scanned the AfD archives for relevant deletion discussions and found a lot of them (I'm only including discussions where membership in one or more orchestras was a key factor in the decision):

1. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julia_Sakharova_(2nd_nomination) (no consensus - member of Arianna String Quartet, assistant concertmaster of Alabama Symphony Orchestra, member of Albany Symphony Orchestra)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Martin (trumpeter) (keep - principal trumpeter for Chicago Symphony Orchestra, one of the Big Five (orchestras))
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Fedderly (keep - principal tuba for Baltimore Symphony Orchestra)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Anderson (musician) (delete - principal double bass for Seattle Symphony Orchestra)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Taubitz (keep - principal 2nd violinist in Berlin Philharmonic)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jascha Silberstein (keep - principal cellist of Metropolitan Opera orchestra)
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Levitz (keep - principal violinist for I Solisti Veneti - keep may also have been partially owing to recordings and reviews, but there's some good discussion of the application of #6 to orchestra members)
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Doriss (delete - principal oboist for Cape Cod Symphony Orchestra)

The picture is not totally consistent, but it seems like it's generally sufficient to be a principal member of a major 'world-class' orchestra. If you're a principal in an orchestra which is notable but not one of the big ones, it's more of a toss-up. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find many cases of non-principal players. If anyone cares to do any further digging, here's a search query to start with which you can modify as needed (it helps to add terms like "violinist", "cellist", "principal", "chair", etc. to mostly get deletion discussions about people rather than orchestras themselves). Colin M (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Same intro

Not sure if we can mention it, but Slippin' and Slidin' (Buddy Holly cover) & Bird Dog (Everly Brothers cover) have the same musical intro. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Local coverage for bands?

I'm reviewing Draft:Trout Steak Revival. My initial take is that (other than the Pollstar article) all the coverage is local, i.e. small papers in Colorado, and thus they're not notable. Looking at WP:NBAND, however, it doesn't say anything about local vs regional/national/global/intergalactic coverage. Opinions welcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• International coverage of a tour is its own notability criterion (#4). Local independent coverage may make the ensemble notable under criterion #7, and this group looks as if it probably could qualify on that point. See also [11], [12], [13], [14]; this group is definitely notable. Chubbles (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Are lists of performances a thing?

Hello,

I came across the following: List of Camila Cabello live performances and wondered if this was generally encouraged?

According to Category:Lists_of_concerts_and_performances there are quite a few of these but it feels borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just became a live performance took place, that doesn't make said performance notable plus artists signed to big labels or with large management times will inevitably have access to more live performance opportunities. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 22:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I’d think it’s generally not acceptable. It’d be similar to covering tours - WP:NTOURS gives good guidance on when and how to do it, though the reality is that most tour articles ignore the guidance and aren’t much more than bare-bones compilations of show lists and set lists. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the user above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I've started a deletion discussion for the article above. Depending on the outcome I might see if we can get a consensus for all articles of this type. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 16:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion in progress of interest to those who work within SNGs: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#North8000's_description_of_how_wp:notability_actually_works_right_nowMontanabw^(talk) 17:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Charts-related lists in song and album article "See also" sections

I've started a discussion at WT:Songs about this issue. Any interested editors, please weigh in at WT:SONG#Inclusion of charts-related lists in "See also" sections. JG66 (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

MusicBrainz is a user-generated database?

Saying that MusicBrainz is a user-generated database is misleading. The track and album names are user-generated, but the data itself is machine-generated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Internet charts - Is it time for us to change guideline 2?

Hello all! @Robert McClenon: and I were discussing Draft:Spirit Phone and a common situation arose. The article used the charts on Bandcamp to establish its notability. The way that I have understood NMUSIC guideline 2 is that :"we are only considering major national charts" (Billboard and equivalent national charts per the country) and that internet based charts that count number of streams (i.e. iTunes, Spotify, Soundcloud, etc.) would not be considered national or global charts. Am I understanding this correctly? Do we need to shift our understanding or perspective of charts to include these options? On one hand, it is not Wikipedia's role to be on the "cutting edge", as many editors of the Current Events portal will tell you. However, as music consumption shifts to streaming sources and more online platforms, are we missing a key factor in notability? I'm fine either way, but I'd like to get the conversation started. Bkissin (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"we are only considering major national charts" -> Yes; "internet based charts that count number of streams would not be considered national or global charts" -> No, they aren't. Everything is covered by Wikipedia:Record charts. "Do we need to shift our understanding or perspective of charts to include these options". Why should we? iTunes, Spotify or Soundcloud, for example, are private services that measure their own sales and whose sales not necessarily impact markets. This was proposed multiple times (see Archive 10, for example); if you believe they warrant to be re-included, a RFC is required. BTW, saying that Draft:Spirit Phone is not notable because it never charted is incorrect. Any topic is notable if the article demonstrates, through multiple non-trivial references (excluding passing mentions), its notability. Spirit Phone, however, needs to be rewritten because many sources there are primary, unreliable or deprecated (the only good sources I see are 9, 19 and 20). (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

OK relax and WP:AGF, Tbhotch. For the record, I still don't think they should be included, as there is little oversight and verification on these sources. I was merely trying to reintroduce the concept. I also think that Spirit Phone is probably notable, just not with the current sources provided, however Robert's question as around the use of Bandcamp charts, which is what spurred this discussion in the first place. If you'd like to help us over at WP:AfC, you are more than welcome to help sift through the dearth of WP:GARAGE candidates we have to deal with. Have a great weekend! Bkissin (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh the irony. I never assumed bad faith. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to step in here. I saw Tbhotch's succinct, masterful and neutral handling of the question yesterday and I elected not to reply, but I see that may not have been a wise choice.

Sinlge-source, private companies, such as iTunes and Spotify do not represent all listeners the way a chart that gathers information from multiple sources. They cannot, and should not, be equated. At best, if a neutral third-party mentions such achievements, we could mention that, without calling the platform a chart.

As for notability, the sources may be notable, but should not be used to represent what charts do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

For the few years American Hot 100 includes streaming same as some other main charts. Eurohunter (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's good occasion to what is the point of including information that number one single on main chart is also number one on dance chart, number 2 on pop chart and number 7 on R&B chart? Eurohunter (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It helps to illustrate that different markets/musical audiences may have found differing levels of appreciation for the song. That's important to telling the song's overall story. Chubbles (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Tracklisting albums. To merge or not

Talk:Late_Night_Tales:_Hot_Chip. Whether to merge stand-alone articles that are merely slightly more more than a track listing/catalog entry. It seems to me from my interpretation of WP:NALBUM standalone album articles like this isn't quite proper and should simply be a line item at Late Night Tales. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's vastly preferable to have skeletal album articles merged into a discography page or a discography section in an artist page than redirected outright or deleted. Our discography guidelines should allow room for things like tracklistings and production data to be included in such places when appropriate. Chubbles (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chubbles:, well if you look at Late Night Tales, there already is a list there. So, from my reading of the aforementioned guidelines, having stand alone page for each and every album that is essentially just a track list is unneeded and I'm suggesting they should be redirected. Are you suggesting a separate article be created just for discography of Late Night Tales and having them be in there instead of Late Night Tales ? Graywalls (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether that information is carried in the subject article itself or in a standalone discography page. Space or information-organization concerns might make it sensible to place in a separate page. Chubbles (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

SNGs and GNG

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:NMUSICIAN #6 scope clarification

At current, NMUSICIAN criterion #6 begins with "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians..." but does not clarify its scope. Must the two or more independently notable musicians be in the group presently or does the fact that they were verifiably (with reliable sources) in the group at some point in the past satisfy this criterion? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's how I see it:

• 2+ already independently-notable musicians at the same time in the past or present, Yes
• Anything else: No

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of examples to understand the question. I came up with The Mynah Birds - a minor Toronto band, but notable because Neil Young and Rick James both played in it, early in their careers. The band also had four other members who were notable musicians though not at that level, and released a few singles. On this example, my thought is that the time of notability need not be the time of membership - a band that included two later-notable musicians, especially such different ones as Neil Young and Rick James, is definitely notable. I might feel differently if a) the band is short-lived, or from high school or college, or messing around in the garage, etc. (all these would make it less notable despite having two notable members), or b) the two notable musicians remained linked later - the early band that included two members of the Heartbreakers, or that included inter alia Simon and Garfunkel, would be less notable as just sort of a precursor to a later notable combination, that can be mentioned in the entry on that later combination. The Quarrymen is rightly notable, though. These are just thoughts, rather than clear answers on the right rule. Sullidav (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's certainly reasonable to change the wording to "contains (or contained)", so that it does not imply that the notable members must currently be in the band (which, I believe, is the meaning of the original question), nor that they need to be in the band at the same time (which seems to be an artificial stipulation, and wasn't a part of the original query). This is consistent with WP:NTEMP and with the spirit of the criterion as initially conceived. Chubbles (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Musicians who committed suicide categories at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability of cover versions

Are cover versions notable enough for inclusion in the original song's article if the cover single has cracked a significant commercial UK Top 40 chart on vinyl? I'm asking for this recent case: [15] --2003:EF:1700:B483:5DB9:6E6A:B4D1:170 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If it satisfies WP:SONGCOVER, yes. Mere charting is not enough to demonstrate notability, per WP:NSONGS. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP:SONGCOVER seems to largely refer back to WP:NSONGS, and this case seems to meet at least one of the criteria at WP:NSONGS by charting. In order to further establish notability, I've tried to google a few reviews of the cover version:

• Michael, James. New 7″ vinyl mixes Dave Brubeck into The Stranglers — The Take Vibe, The New LoFi, January 16th, 2021 (a source good enough to be used on our article Serious Klein)
• Single of the Week: The Take Vibe E.P., DJ D-Mac & Associates, October 2, 2020
• Take Vibe E.P. - Golden Brown, Nostalgia King, October 7, 2020 (a source already in use on articles such as Citizen Kane, Snuff Garrett, and Putham Pudhu Kaalai)
• Gorton, TJ. The Stranglers meet Dave Brubeck on this incredible 7inch release on Jazz Room Records, Beat Caffeine, October 14, 2020
• The TAKE VIBE EP, Golden Brown, Juno Records
• Golden Brown, Take Vibe E.P., JAZZR005, deejay.de
• Hebeisen, Ane. Die besten Songs 2020 (Teil 2) ("The Best Songs of 2020 (Part 2)"), Tages-Anzeiger, December 30, 2020

Besides those reviews, the cover has also found its way into official over-the-air FM radio station playlists:

• [16]
• [17]
• [18] --2003:EF:1700:B483:5DB9:6E6A:B4D1:170 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Notability does not apply to content within an article, so robust coverage of a song's history can and often will include reference to cover versions, regardless of whether they charted. Chubbles (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Active AfD discussions

To any users interested, there are two open AfD music discussions that involve the notability of their topics. Here is the first one and here is the second one. Any comments and responses are welcome and appreciated. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC).