Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Question

Is the third paragraph of this guideline a direct contradiction with WP:NEXIST? This guideline states: To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. [...] the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources. However, NEXIST states that the absence of sources or citations in an article does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. I'm asking this because I was once told that I shouldn't redirect an article simply because the editor who created it didn't provide enough sources, but this guideline seems to be suggesting the opposite. Hayman30 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I would guess it is. Why? Because that NEXIST advice is impossible to follow! And indeed, it ends with a nod to real-life applicability: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. CapnZapp (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Individual members, reality television performers

The current criteria is expressed as a "Note that" in italics. This suggests this is referencing a guideline elsewhere, instead of (I assume) the actual rule.

Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable.

I therefore suggest we re-present this as actual defining criteria, rather than just "noting" to the reader what applies (as if that was established elsewhere). Also, that we add shortcuts that can be used to refer editors who add standalone articles for band members only notable as part of their band.

===Individual members, reality television performers=== {{Shortcut|WP:BANDMEMBER|WP:REALITYBIO|WP:REALITYSINGER}} # Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. # Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a [[reality television]] series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable.

Note how I (to the best of my ability) have not changed the actual phrasing or the resulting guideline/criteria. I have just reformatted it as what it is - actual criteria.

CapnZapp (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Couple things about the wording of that. One, a member of a band can have a standalone article even with no independent activity if that musician gets specific attention through substantial coverage. Some virtuosic musicians who spend their entire careers with one group get sufficient attention to meet the GNG. Second, some musicians are granted articles of their own when they are members of multiple notable groups, if there is no clear redirect target, so long as the membership meets WP:V. Chubbles (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
If you want to tweak the wording, feel free. Let me just note that this talk section isn't about the actual content of the guideline/policy, but how it's presented. If noone objects I'll go ahead and create them shortcuts... Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done CapnZapp (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Again feel free to keep discussing the wording. I was only concerned about the presentation. CapnZapp (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Noticing you haven't gotten any comments on your proposal, User:Chubbles, maybe just boldly edit the policy and see if anyone objects? At the very least, start your own talk section for visibility? CapnZapp (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the simplest way to clean that up would be to just take out the phrase "for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". This would leave room for any musician who is a member of an ensemble who meets any of the 12 criteria (and my examples above are just bullets 1 and 6 of WP:MUSIC). I suppose we should give that a few more days for any other potential objections to bubble up. Chubbles (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Even if not notable for individual label, I am wondering about appropriateness of roll call/credit roster type thing I have come to understand to be highly common in art/music articles, like this Brooke_Alexander_Gallery. See the long list of name. Is such roll call for bands and other performing arts appropriate? Graywalls (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Best websites to check "certified gold", "national music chart", "Grammy", etc.

There's a couple of WP:NALBUM criteria that should in theory be easy to check. Do you guys have a favorite website for checking this information?

The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart.

The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country.

The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The first place I look for chart listings, certifications, and awards/nominations is the respective websites. If those are lacking, usually for awards there's news coverage. Chart information can be hardest to find.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

MUSICBIO vs GNG

Should an article of a musician be kept if they technically meet MUSICBIO by way of one song charting at #41 in the UK, even if there is a complete failure of GNG? Célena Cherry for reference. SK2242 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. An article does not need to meet the GNG if it meets an SNG. There are published works, at least for the UK and US (and I am quite sure many other countries), that cover every single band that's ever hit the national charts. Chubbles (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
No. If all that can be said about the subject is that they charted, then it's probably not worth an article. Remember. SNG states "can or should be written", not must be written, and MUSICBIO states that the subject may be notable if. The nod is always toward GNG. The article you linked to is marginally notable, but for being on the reality TV show. The totality of sourced content could be moved to Honeyz and not increase the article by much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I've never understood this position, though I don't know if this is the right venue for a definitive call. But if the nod is always toward the GNG, there would be no need for the SNGs. Their existence speaks to the fact that Wikipedians recognize the GNG does not speak definitively in all cases to the importance of subjects - here, specifically, that it does not sufficiently capture what is encyclopedic in the realm of music. I, for one, think everyone who ever charted should have an article; that is a sufficiently high bar to clear to indicate enduring encyclopedic interest, and in this case, Cherry's hit indicates a worthy article topic. Chubbles (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
You don't understand the conditional, "may"? That's the word on which it all hinges. The fact that SNGs does not speak to anything other than the possibility that there is. Wikipedia is impressed with what you think, but you must realize that just because a person recorded a work that charted does not immediately make them notable. Not even AllMusic assumes that of a musician or band, nor should we. So why do so many SNGs say "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" or something like it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is always WP:IAR, and even articles that pass the GNG sometimes get deleted. No one said must, here. But a charting hit has long been, and I think justifiably been, taken as one of the iron indicators of a musician's notability. To speak to the specific case of Cherry, it's a rather high placement on the national chart; the case isn't close in my eyes. Chubbles (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Just because someone has a song chart on a national chart doesn't mean they should get an article about them. There has to be coverage from reliable sources to warrant a separate page for the person themselves. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Certainly, the article must meet WP:V, but for most European and North American countries, verification of chart placement is not usually an issue, since there are major, central publications that publish chart data (and, usually, some biographical data alongside, which is a plus.) Chubbles (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This might depend if the musician is a solo artist for that song or part of a collab. If it's a collab then redirect to the song as their sole notabiilty and when they get another single or when they get enough of those GNG sources about their career, they can get their own article. Kind of like directors/creators for a film. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 04:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

SNG is meant as a subset to GNG - it provides indicators that a subject meets GNG. Verifiability and notability (the latter defined as significant coverage in multiple works) still need to be met. These sources don't have to be online - they can be print. The only exception to GNG I know of is WP:TEXTBOOKS. It's possible to make an SNG the standard rather than GNG, that discussion would have to take place at the Village Pump.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The SNG is not a subset to the GNG; it is an alternative way of meeting WP:N. There would be no need for the SNGs if everything that met an SNG also had to meet the GNG to be included. We created them specifically because the GNG, while a good indicator of encyclopedic value, is not sufficient to capture everything encyclopedic. Chubbles (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that, that's interesting. How could something meet SNG without meeting GNG? Only using primary sources and databases isn't going to qualify it for notability, is it?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that the status of different SNGs are not the same; two that definitely establish Notability without a GNG pass are WP:NGEO and WP:NPROF. So if you wanted to understand those polar cases, that might help with the muddier ones. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, understood. In this case I'm referring to MUSICBIO.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The key phrase in MUSICBIO, in my view, is To meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. So there do have to be reliable sources; it is more a walk-around of WP:SIGCOV than a pass for the concept of Notability in general. Newimpartial (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Another way of looking at this MUSICBIO scenario is that as long as there is independent RS sourcing for the hit, non-independent sourcing that meets WP:V can be used to fill out the article without running afoul of WP:N. By contrast, the same approach is not allowed in areas without an SNG where the GNG must be followed or in areas under the purview of WP:NCORP, where standards stricter than the GNG apply. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about a jazz drummer named Hugh Elliott

Hi to all the experts here:

I want to move the page Hugh Elliott (editor), since the qualifier "editor" is too ambiguous for what he actually does (edits TV series), and should be reserved for people from publishing or journalism. Usually I would move to Hugh Elliott (film editor), but in this case he is also a musician, and that aspect takes up far more space in the article than the editing. That may be a case of notability fishing though – especially as the main contributor to the article, User:1sjjmhbt0, is probably Hugh Elliott himself, as can be seen in his contribution history and the commons page of his photo].

I have absolutely no idea whether he meets the notability criteria as a musician. As a film editor (which is my area of expertise), he isn't very notable, but I suppose he scrapes through on bulk of credits. If you would consider him notable enough as a musician, I would move the page to Hugh Elliott (musician), based on what the article mainly focuses on. --Sprachraum (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It has been five days now – Anyone willing to venture an assessment of this persons notability as a musician? --Sprachraum (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, since no-one has posted anything here in over a month, I have now moved him to Hugh Elliott (film editor). --Sprachraum (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability of albums - at what time is an album notable?

There's currently a mess with an editor trying to create Revelación out of the redirect to Draft:Revelación. They are clearly connected, and it frustrating to have the editor ignore AFC and {{R with possibilities}} "do not create the article from this redirect". It is disrespectful to the editors who have been trying to create the article using the draft process for their work to be completely replaced by this version, as well as a big consumption of time and energy to the AFC/NPP reviewers.

I tried to set a boundary of considering the album article at one week before the release, since that would provide enough time for advance critics of the album to post reviews, but that was thrown out the window.

I suggest a histmerge of the new editor's work to the draft. This can histmerge either way: either histmerge the draft to the main article or vice versa. I don't really care. I just want it known that the article is the results of the combined effort of all editors involved. Histmerge has since failed for parallel histories

So we need to revisit when should album articles be okay to mainspace. Here are the options:

  • When the album is announced? This goes against WP:TENPOUNDHAMMER, so the suggestion is to wait.
  • When the album's title is announced?
  • When the song is first recorded, as with MOS:FILM "commenced principal photography" The problem here is that many singles are released well before an album to collect the singles is even considered.
  • When the last song is recorded for the album? This would be similar to principal photography wrapped up, with album headed towards being a real product
  • When the release date is announced? (similar to MOS:TV and its broadcast date)
  • When the full track list is presented?
  • When the album has charted? (as with songs that don't really get individual critical review articles)
  • When the album is first screened or reviewed by critics? (as with songs, albums and films, television episodes already released)
  • When the album is released? (as with summaries for television episodes)
  • One week before the album is released. As I mentioned above, this gives plenty of time to fill in the details such as track list and promotions, and prepares it for reception and charting. This would be for artists that will clearly chart. It's also the equivalent of when a TV episode would show up in a TV programming guide.

or

  • When there are two GNG sources regardless of what state the album is in, confirming that it's going to happen?

Please help recommend what to do about these situations going forward. I don't want to waste time at AFC giving advice to editors in that area on improving on WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TENPOUNDHAMMER drafts if they're just going to be ignored and other editors' versions of their material thrown in mainspace anyway. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note WP:NALBUM #1 excludes press releases and a lot of the upcoming information for albums such as track release listings, release dates, teasers, album artwork, album teaser videos, social media, are primary and secondary coverage of press release material. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sure: If there's nothing significant to say about the album (read: GNG) we don't create an article for it, no matter how notable the band that created the work are. So if we have no realiable sources to discuss it, no article should be created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE says that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia", so meeting GNG, although necessary, is not sufficient. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be more than a summary-only description of an album (infobox, track listing, credits, release dates). It is supposed to treat the album "in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the work. That is rarely possible until after the album is released. A blow-by-blow chronology of efforts to hype the album doesn't cut it unless the marketing is different enough from any other album of the era to be of encyclopedic interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little curious , what's an estimate of how many oft he album articles in WP actually meet this standard-- 50%?, I know in some other fields the that only about half might meet a strict interpretation, and is this field any different? DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

List of live performances

There is a necessity of reaching a consensuses regarding the list of live performances. Several have been nominated to be deleted and more keep getting created each day with various opinions. Usually, these lists include tours and live performances. Its a fact that the more known the artists/groups is, it and can gather "fans" the easier is for them to get invited to live shows to perform in oder to get higher ratings for those shows, wther they are awards shows or the "sunday morning show". Most of these performances are included on the song's or album's respective page with a little more depth than these list, henceforth no necessity for this. As for the concerts tours, they have their own independent pages wiht gross value, guest singers and more depth with reviews, each show gross value... Most of these lists, see 1 and 2, I selected two but there are more examples, look like a grocery list, some not being properly source or not sourced at all, see 3 and 4. They don't add anything new to wikipedia and most of them seem fan made. Tthis is a summarisation of many other articles - the concert pages and wikipedia is not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information.

I have decided to ping several users that have voted on several of discussions in order to get some sort of consessues: HĐ, SomeBodyAnyBody05, Lesliechin1, Dream Focus, Riddhidev BISWAS, Doggy54321, Aoba47 and Lil-unique1. Anyone else, feel free to join the discussion. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Those lists have wikiprojects for discographies and awards. Very different. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@MarioSoulTruthFan: That doesn't matter. The fact that some of these articles have WikiProjects and some don't is irrelevant when deciding if the lists are indiscriminate or not. Some of the "List of ___ live performances" articles are FAs, but that doesn't mean they are immune to deletion. And, my whole point was that all these articles are the exact same, so if someone wants to argue that one is indiscriminate, they should argue that all these types of articles are. This is exactly what I was doing: I think all these lists are indiscriminate and should be deleted, but I don't think it's fair to only delete some but not all of them when they are essentially the same. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 22:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
It was bound to happen. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taylor Swift live performances Is the AFD in question, and overwhelmingly people said Keep. Category:Lists of concerts and performances shows other such articles. Note that these articles list their concert tours which have their own articles, making them valid list articles for that alone, they aiding in navigation and also listing related things in a reasonable manner. Reliable sources do give significant coverage to their performances on notable award shows. Do they always give them coverage for appearances elsewhere? Dream Focus 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the AFD in question, you pinged all those who wanted to delete it, but not everyone who said to keep it. That is against the canvassing rules. You have to contact everyone. I'm pinging everyone else now. HumanxAnthro LSGH Johnnyboytoy Heartfox MaranoFan Dream Focus 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. An album release comprises several stages. First the artist writes the music and the lyrics. Then he/she records it. Next, they promote it through concert tours, promo tours, TV shows, awards shows and so on. ALL pages about albums state "to promote the album, the artist embarked on the X Tour", "to support the album, the artist embarked on the X tour", "The artist made many appearances on radio and television", "The artist performed at awards shows including...". So why is it that only concert tours are to be kept, when it is only one part of a promotion strategy? To say that live performances lists are fancruft is absolutely nonsense. In such case, the same can be said about concert tours, as only the fans will be interested in such pages, detailing dates, venues, songs performed, attendance and total gross. Not to mention lists of awards and nominatons received by an artist, movie, album, or single, that will also only interest fans of such artists or work. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see how these lists fail INDISCRIMINATE. It says "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". Well ... many live performances lists do just that. In the Taylor Swift one, for example, almost all entries are sourced to reliable secondary sources, and it is put in context with multiple paragraphs in the lead. It is not a random incomprehensible "indiscriminate" collection of information including what outfit she wore or whatever; it includes the songs performed, program, date, etc. (basic facts). The concert tours list easily meets WP:LISTN, and the other performances would probably meet that for most artists as there's likely articles covering their "best live performances" or something similar. If not, then it could be minimized down to award shows, festivals, etc. and not every TV performance. Heartfox (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is there is no way of classinfing the best performances, henceforth you have to add them all. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • WP:LISTN does say "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." As long as there are a couple articles discussing an artist's performances, it seems okay to include them all. But like I said above, if there aren't such groupings, then it would be more appropriate to reduce it to just award show performances or something similar. Live performance lists' depth/inclusion will vary depending on the coverage in secondary sources; I think it would be inappropriate to apply the same rules for every one. Heartfox (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Heartfox The reduction would also be applied to concert tours? Because they sure are extensive. Would it be appropriate to reduce them to only sucessful tours, and "the most memorable" concerts of each tour, instead of listing each and every concert of such tours? Johnnyboytoy (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
          • No, I think the concert tours and the other live performances are separate matters. I believe a list of concert tours meets LISTN easily and is perfectly valid for a list article, as they almost always have articles/notability/secondary coverage. For the other live performances, if there's a consensus that a list of all of them is unnecessary, then I would say at least keep a list of higher-notable performances, such as those at award shows. Just like the concert tours lists don't list every concert from each tour, the live performances list may only provide more significant ones. But again, I am still of the opinion that everything is okay, so long as it is covered in a reliable secondary source, or it is probable that such a source exists. Heartfox (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to make a caveat to my statement. The live performances listed in these type of article should be on notable morning shows, sports events, venues, award shows, concerts and so on. For example, Good Morning America, Saturday Night Live, NPR's Tiny Desk concerts, the MTV awards, Kids' Choice Awards, NFL games, Grammies etc. etc. If the only performances to list are at local, non-notable venues and places, even if the artist is notable, then I would consider a live performances list too WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: First, I would like to thank @MarioSoulTruthFan: for opening this discussion. I am commenting on here as I was pinged, and I do not feel entirely comfortable voting either way. I do have a question about it though. Would it be beneficial to only list live performances that were covered by reliable, third-party sources? This conversation somewhat reminds me of the issue with covers, and WP:COVERSONG tries to avoid having a seemingly indiscriminate list by using coverage as one of its criteria. Could that be a useful thing to apply here as well? I could be entirely wrong and I have never worked on this type of list so my experience is very limited. This was just something that I had thought about and wanted to share. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Every album article has a section called "promotion" in which is included: the tour to promote the album, possibly its attendance and gross, and also all live performances for its singles, whether they are on Award shows, TV specials, radio programs, talk shows, etc. Performances lists simply gather all these performances together. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have to agree with Aoba47, only feature live performances covered by "reliable, third-party sources". I have never worked either but is seems plausible in a way that only the notable performances would be featured, perhaps with some description next to the performance like the videographies lists. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: To me, the answer depends on the specific page. I would be less in favor of keeping pages that are long and pure lists with minimal documentation, such as List of Ramones concerts. That seems to me beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and more appropriate for a fan site. On the other hand, I would be more inclined to keep pages that have significant non-list content such as The Rolling Stones' Tour of the Americas '75. So I would draw the line somewhere in between those. But this is subjective - one person's "fancruft" is another's encyclopedic information. Sullidav (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • "One person's "fancruft" is another's encyclopedic information." Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head! In cases, when it's not obvious whether it truly falls under WP:NOT even if it meets WP:LISTN and there is reliable coverage, how do we truly know when something is fancruft? I think this question applies to all other topics beside music as well. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not a fan of recreating content in lists per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia should not be a collection of lists of things that exist. Unless there is coverage from a reliable source that says something like "top ten performances by..." etc the concept of a list of performances itself isn't notable. It's highly unlikely that someone will search for a performance. Live performances inherit notability from the work they are a performance of unless the performance itself receives coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Keep", "delete"?" This ain't AFD. Every article is independent of each other and they should be evaluated individually. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    I agree. I thought it odd people keep doing that. There should be a discussion on what is acceptable in these articles and what is not, to save time arguing in future AFDs though. Dream Focus 01:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    I was confused by that as well. This is only a preliminary discussion about what people's thoughts are. Heartfox (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I know there is obscure examples as Sullivan mentioned "the answer depends on the specific page" and Tbhotch reminds "they should be evaluated individually" but overall, stand-alone lists of this type could be fine (at least for me). Also I tend to concur with some points expressed by HĐ in the recently AfD for Swift in the sense of have every addition/live performance fall into WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While I know opinions vary in what is or not relevant, the inclusion of award shows and TV appearances are examples of indiscriminate info (at least for me) and those mentions could be only fine in their articles for respective songs/albums (sections "promotion"/"live performances"). Also, I think we should avoid the inclusion of obscure performances such as those without an article in Wikipedia as WP:LISTN recommends: "choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles" unless there is a "valid reason". Within good examples of content could be (at least for me) a summary of concert tours, festivals or benefit concerts. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sound designers covered under NMUSICBIO?

Does WP:MUSICBIO apply to sound designers? I am thinking no, as being a sound designer is not about being a musician.--- Possibly (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

In what way would they be included? The criteria is primarily for bands and musicians. Sound designers do not fall into those categories, although they overlap with the latter. I think you have to rely on GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Question: If a musician was decorated (precisely with the Grand Cross of the Order of May 2 - Madrid), could he have a page?

If a musician was decorated (precisely with the Grand Cross of the Order of May 2 - Madrid), could he have a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DejiJJ (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That does not appear to be a notable Grand Cross. I would argue that if the musician received coverage in sources outside Madrid, yes. Does this musician have an article on the Spanish project? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NSONG

  • The statement that precedes the three points that suggest notability in this section reads:


...followed by the first point, which is:


My question is, why doesn't that point ensure that the song or single in question is definitely notable? I ask because a number of single-related articles that I created have been recently nominated for AfD (save for the final example) and then subsequently merged despite charting on the Billboard charts ([1] [2] [3]). And if that point indeed doesn't absolutely ensure notability, why is it even listed? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It isn't a firm guarantee because not everything that charts will get coverage. There might be times where you see articles focusing on the chart performance of one specific track (or a group of tracks by different artists), but what's more important is that credible secondary sources not closely affiliated with the artist write pieces that give more than just a cumulative paragraph discussing the song, and those from album reviews don't count. You shouldn't simply presume something is notable solely based on entering a chart. That's a common mistake I've seen people make. On the flipside, songs can potentially warrant articles without charting anywhere at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's safe to say that a #1 hit on a major chart will have garnered enough attention to be notable. A song that only got to like #80 probably isn't going to make much noise and can be safely redirected unless there's something noteworthy about it otherwise. For instance, Maybe I Mean Yes didn't even crack top 40 on Hot Country Songs but had a controversy attached to it that makes it notable regardless. Even if a song's article isn't very long at the moment, it shouldn't be hard to find extensive coverage on the higher-charting songs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with the points here. Not many people look at the preamble for this or other specific criteria for notability. We say may precisely because the criteria are possible ways that a work (or person, or band) may be written about. They are not guarantees. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement with SNUGGUMS. Not everything that charts will get coverage, and even songs that do not chart anywhere can be considered notable if they have received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. It is possible for a song to have charted and only received a limited amount of coverage and in those cases, the information can be conveyed in either the article about the parent album or the artist(s) without any information being lost. Coverage is a better indicator of notability, and as I said above, I am pretty much in agreement with SNUGGUMS here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Discographies vs. list of articles

Question. What is the point of having a discography article and a list of songs by for the same artist? If the discography doesn't have all the same info as the list article, why not simply expand the discography? Onel5969 TT me 01:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There is an ugly habit some editors have of scrubbing discography articles of track listings, when this would be a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem of how to provide information about an artist's recorded output in lieu of having separate album articles that do not meet WP:NALBUM. I see no reason why song lists should not be profitably merged into discographies, so long as the tendency of removing track lists ends. Chubbles (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Entertainer page

What are the requirements to meet before getting an entertainer page on Wikipedia BennyGram (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Apart from general notability, entertainers can be demonstrated to be notable if they meet the specific notability guidelines for entertainers. PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Ideally, if there's a lot written about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Album with Cult following

Should an album be considered notable if it has a verified cult following? Should the album notability guidelines include a provision to that effect? This would parallel films, where a film is notable if, among other criteria, it has a verifiable cult following. For background, there has recently been a Deletion Review where the album in question appears to have a cult following. (There were other issues in the AFDs and the DRV, including gaming of titles, but this question is about cult following for an album.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Only if the cult following helps the album gain a lot of coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent addition

This substantial edit was just added to the guideline. While I don't necessarily have any objections to its content, we don't usually add content unilaterally to such a frequently-referenced guideline without prior discussion, do we? Chubbles (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I saw it too. It could stand a few changes, but it is not an unreasonable addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a notability policy guideline for music producers on albums?

Not sure what policy to look at for evaluating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Baughman.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I think your analysis is correct and solid: WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE would apply, and awards would be the best/fastest way to establish notability. However, I echo your concern that in that specific case, our articles on the major albums he is listed has having produced.... don't cite him as a producer. So, someone would need to sort that one out. I spot checked a couple by Eminem, Pink, Snoop Dogg, and Michael Jackson, and didn't find his name in any of those articles, so the question is then "what exactly DID he do?" and "Does that count as a major contribution to an award-winning creative work?". Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Which standard applies to Singles?

This page has two separate standards that both say they apply to singles (WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG). Wouldn't it be clearer to simply have one standard that applies to singles? As it stands this seems like pointless repetition. Probably we could just merge WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG into a single standard. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

NSONG applies is the only one that applies to singles, and you can read the section for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Then why does Nalbum also say it applies to singles? Should we delete that part? FOARP (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I see. Perhaps we could clarify where NALBUM starts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with FOARP – I think we could combine WP:NALBUM and WP:NSONG into one section, and then add WP:SONGCOVER to the end as being specifically for songs/singles. Points 5 and 6 of WP:NALBUM are more likely to be relevant for songs rather than albums anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Concert set lists

I really think it's time we added a line to WP:NTOUR explicitly stating that set lists sourced from Setlist.fm or artist's fan pages are not acceptable, as they fail WP:USERG. 90% of tour articles on Wikipedia are little more than a list of tour dates anyway, but so many of them add set lists from Setlist.fm to try and add more sources to them. Richard3120 (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Really, a cover can never have an independent article?

That seems like a rather ridiculous guideline to me—a good song article is going to have big sections about production, release, reception, and themes. Those are going to be very different in cover songs that have taken on a life of their own. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of Marvin Gaye's I Heard It Through The Grapevine (as well as Creedence Clearwater Revival's), The Beatles' Twist and Shout, The Animals' The House of the Rising Sun, Simon & Garfunkel's Scarborough Fair, Gillian Welch and Allison Krauss's I'll Fly Away, and They Might Be Giants' Istanbul (Not Constantinople), but there are many more. If a Wikipedia article on a song solely focuses on the song's lyrics and tune, that's a pretty terrible article—but that's the only thing a notable cover has in common with its original. If a cover has independent notability, it should have a separate article. Pigeonholing a cover into the original's article fundamentally misrepresents what a song's Wikipedia article should focus on, and leaves out a lot of notable information that could very well have its own article. Am I missing something? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The cover can have its own article if it would make the original article too long to include both versions. I know what you're saying about differences in styles – the three major versions of "Tainted Love" have nothing in common with each other musically – but it does make it much harder to search for a particular version if you are going to have a separate article for each one. Also, where would you include the cover versions that are notable enough for a mention because they charted somewhere, but not notable enough for their own article, like the versions of "Red Red Wine" that aren't by Neil Diamond or UB40... in the Neil Diamond version's article, or the UB40 one? Richard3120 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
If a song has one cover, it can be hatnoted on the original—if it has multiple, we can have a set index or disambiguation article hatnoted to the original. Not-quite-notable covers would still go on the original, I presume—and originals would probably still have some mentions of notable covers with "main article" hatnotes. I don't think the originals should change much theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The only "cover" version that has an independent article is The Star-Spangled Banner (The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston recording)). No other version has managed to be as extensive as that one. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that the guidance above and in the guideline is the best answer. But regarding the OP, nothing uses categorical language equivalent to "Never" and regarding wp:notability there is also the wp:GNG route in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@North8000: per WP:NSONG: Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. Covers that pass GNG don't get their own articles. It's a much higher, and apparently unwritten, bar. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Might you be interpreting that from a more nuanced situation? For example, where it was weak or borderline on having GNG coverage (which I imagine would be the case with most covers) combined with some influence from the discussed guidance in the SNG? North8000 (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
re nothing uses categorical language equivalent to "Never", WP:COVERSONG says When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article) (emphasis mine). Granted, that only has the status of wikiproject guidance, rather than a policy or guideline, but in practice it seems to be treated as an actual rule rather than mere local consensus. (I have to admit, I myself thought that it was a guideline until I double-checked just now. I wonder whether this principle has ever been tested at AfD with an article on a cover which clearly passes GNG? If not, maybe we just need someone to overcome the inertia by starting such an article and seeing if it survives.) Colin M (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Update: Here are a few examples of AfDs where editors uncritically accept WP:COVERSONG as a consensus rule (though this was not necessarily determinative of the outcome in all cases - i.e. in some cases the subject also failed GNG in addition to being a cover):
Though none of these really represent the sort of strong test case I was looking for. Colin M (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm okay with Taylor Swift not getting two articles for re-recording the same song—that's largely going to be the same article unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The others, though... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm definitely not saying these were all incorrect outcomes, I'm just trying to demonstrate that editors tend to treat WP:COVERSONG as a guideline in practice rather than a wikiproject essay. Colin M (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

We Are the World 25 for Haiti, Somos El Mundo 25 Por Haiti, and We Are the World 25 for Haiti (YouTube edition) are all covers of the original We Are the World, and they have their own articles, and both Band Aid 20 and Band Aid 30 aren't far off from being an article for their cover of Do They Know It's Christmas?, so their is precedence for covers having their own article. I personally don't think they should be their own articles but there is precedence. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The question we should be asking is, what is the subject of the article? The statement "covers should not have their own articles" implies that the song is the subject of the article, and all versions of that song should be covered in one article on one topic. However, there is no reason in principle that recordings, rather than songs, can't be the subject of their own articles. Recordings are ontologically distinct from songs and are ontologically distinct from each other, and if they reach a certain threshold of journalistic/critical/academic analysis, then it only makes sense to treat them as separate topics for an article. I think the number of cases where that is necessary is probably small, but WP:IAR cases are going to come up here where it is sensible to have more than one article for "the same song". Chubbles (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I am in utter agreement with theleekycauldron. In fact, I wrote a grumbling mini-essay on exactly this, which I'll quote almost in full: I just don't see any rational reason for [WP:SONGCOVER's prohibition against standalone articles for covers]. Whitney Houston's cover of I Will Always Love You obviously passes GNG by miles. There's plenty to say about that cover specifically (its chart performance, its awards and critical reception, its music video, etc.), but for some reason it needs to live as an article-within-an-article at the song article. How is this better for readers? A somewhat analogous situation is video game remakes/remasters, which we do allow to occupy separate articles (e.g. Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster). Colin M (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
See, I think exactly the opposite of this. By having all versions in one article it allows the reader to trace the development and growth in popularity of "I Will Always Love You" over the years, that Whitney's version was inspired by Linda Ronstadt's version, which was inspired by Dolly's original... I actually appreciate this, to be able to follow the history of a song in one article and not break it up. It also means the reader doesn't have to search for "I Will Always Love You (Dolly Parton song)", "I Will Always Love You (Whitney Houston version)", "I Will Always Love You (Kristen Chenoweth version)", etc. But I do agree with a lot of what Chubbles says above, and I think that there will be cases where a separate article may be justified. Richard3120 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I don't necessarily think that a cover having its own article should negate its level of coverage in the original article, because you're right that it's valuable information. But I also think that there's more we can say in a few notable articles rather than one, especially for readers looking to learn more specifically about one version. And I think the original wouldn't have any parentheses in the title—Dolly Parton's version would be "I Will Always Love You" with a hatnote to Whitney Houston's version, and possibly others. also, kristen chenoweth‽ i learned something new today theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: you and Colin have perfectly reasonable arguments, and I guess I just see it differently... it's one of those topics that people are going to have different opinions about. I'd note that the hatnote wouldn't work in every instance – "Unchained Melody" has been no. 1 for four different artists in the UK alone, and there are plenty of other notable versions, so that could get messy. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the navigation issue, using the Unchained Melody example, if we had standalone articles for each of those four renditions, then they could be listed at Unchained Melody (disambiguation), with the main article having a hatnote link to the dab page. However, readers would not necessarily need to navigate through the dab page to get to their intended destination. The introduction of the current article currently mentions some notable covers. If we had articles for those covers, we could link to them in the text of the intro. e.g. It has since become a standard and one of the most recorded songs of the 20th century, after being popularized by a July 1965 recording by the Righteous Brothers. But also the current section structure of the main article could be kept roughly the same, except that the sections about covers that had separate articles could be condensed down to a summary and a hatnote link to the cover article, per summary style. So the reader would have a third way of navigating to their intended article - by hopping to the corresponding section via the table of contents and then clicking through the {{main}} section hatnote link. Colin M (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I really hate how multiple versions of a song (often multiple different single releases by different artists) are bundled into one horrible mess of an article. It's symptomatic of the failure of the WP community to understand the difference between a song, a recording of a song, and a single. --Michig (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

(I thought this might provide some useful context/background. Feel free to add to this any others you think are relevant.)

  • 2009-2010: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions discussions about this issue, attempting to work toward a guideline on where information about covers should live. Participants were fairly evenly split. Does not appear to have reached consensus. Seems to suggest that the unwritten status quo at the time was to favour merging rather than splitting.
  • October 2011 cover guidance added to WikiProject Songs, basically mirroring the current advice of WP:COVERSONG. Brief preceding discussion here, though it focused more on the question of criteria for a cover to be mentioned in the main song article, rather than the question of whether covers qualify for separate articles.
  • Feb 2013: an MfD about the split vs. merge problem. Ultimately procedurally closed as taking place in the wrong venue, but interesting in that it echoes a lot of the points raised here.
  • Feb-Mar 2013: this discussion established consensus to add the "notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article" verbiage to WP:NSONG.

Colin M (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"placed in rotation"

Is that still a thing? Sorry for my ignorance. I'm still playing old tapes of WKRP in Cincinnati. —valereee (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Certainly is, subject to WP:V, of course. Chubbles (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Streaming statistics?

Are there notability guidelines that specifically cover total streams and active monthly listeners on streaming platforms? These are touched on briefly in WP:CHART, but it feels like something that would warrant a specific mention in this article. Cormac.nataro (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

There should be one, or something similar. The industry has pivoted to focusing on streaming in the last couple years, with much less focus on traditional music journalism, which in the past was a qualifier for notability. I've been struggling recently trying to create articles for artists who have tens of millions of streams, and a sizeable buzz on social media, while it's a lot easier to make articles for artists who barely have 10,000 monthly listeners and can't tour, because they've targeted journalists as a marketing strategy. The former is certainly notable, the latter less so, but the guidelines currently don't reflect this. quin 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

English versus British

Is there a precedent for this? I've seen numerous IPs fighting and changing one to the other and back when describing an artist. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've seen it as well. I would usually write British, but it depends on what RSes state. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
British people or Britons, also known colloquially as Brits, are the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British Overseas Territories, and the Crown dependencies. So an English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, Gibraltarian etc would be British. For example, a Welsh person could also be described British but not be as English. In American terms, it's a bit Californians -v- Texans - they are still Americans. This English Brit is not going to war of these definitions. LOL. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: back to my original question, what does that mean for referring to artist? Should we say English Singer Adele or British Singer Adele for example? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Assuming her place of birth as Walthamstow, London, it may be considered correct to call her English or British, English being a drill down from British, either would be correct, but not Welsh, Irish or Scottish. But I am sure somebody would come along with another opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
And I would say neither, but for a different reason: singer should not be capitalized. Once that has been addressed, either would be acceptable. I would also use what most reliable sources refer to her as. For instance, AllMusic] writes English, but they are only a single source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
English and British are both correct - English is more specific, but nobody has an English passport. I often see editors edit-warring over these but wouldn't waste my time getting too involved. --Michig (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Michig, it's not something I'm going to waste my time arguing over. It seems to be more common that editors want to specify the country when the musical act is not English – see for example the description of the band in the first line of Deacon Blue, Stereophonics and Stiff Little Fingers. Having grown up in the UK during the 1970s and 1980s, I am well aware that calling Stiff Little Fingers "Northern Irish" is by far the least contentious description, and I'm happy to leave it at that. Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Pre-LP era acts and their notability

As an editor with an interest in the music of the 1930s, 40s and 50s, parts of the notability criteria concern me. Quote: "5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." This is biased against those artists who achieved notability in the pre-LP era, ie. those who careers may have petered out before 1950 or thereabouts - that's about sixty years of recording history. I would suggest that as the standard was for an LP to have 12 tracks, this criteria should be modified for popular artists of the pre-LP era who recorded a large output for major labels: the equivalent could apply, namely 24 recordings, or 12 45/78rpm singles for a major label. There is also the possibility that a major label has re-issued the artist's work on two or more compilation albums, which the criteria could address.
Additionally, conferring notability based on sales charts and certification awards also skews the criteria against pre-LP era artists. There were no widely accepted American sales charts before 1940, and in the UK, before 1952 - see "2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." Now, many of the performers I'm thinking of would probably qualify under other criteria on the list, such as "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." Given the significance of radio in the pre-LP era, this would also apply: "12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network." But in any case, I would propose some tweaking of the criteria to allow for artists who were prolific on 45/78rpm but never released an LP (particularly in the era before albums).--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's right to say these criteria skew against them, unless you are seeing practice in AfD biasing against early artists because they fail to meet these specific criteria. (I haven't seen much of that, but I am not watching super closely.) There are a number of other criteria that pre-LP/chart artists may meet that equally qualify them for inclusion. I think one more criterion that should be explicitly added is: if the artist has an entry in any major/reputable music encylopedia, that confers notability. That would also cover, e.g., a lot of early folk artists, jazz musicians, popular songwriters from before the rock'n'roll era, and art-music composers that don't conform to the chart/sales/streaming paradigms that usually govern success in the modern music era. I'm not opposed to some broadening adjustments for early recording artists, but I guess we'd need a more concrete proposal to consider. Chubbles (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. No, I’m not suggesting that such articles are more likely to go through AfD, just that those particular notability tests are more difficult for pre-rock or pre-LP acts to pass. I’d agree that if these performers are in a major encyclopaedia, that should qualify them for notability here. I think AllMusic uses Muze or similar for biographical information. I recently wrote an article about Steve Conway, whose career preceded both the album and sales chart era in the UK. He probably meets other notability criteria though, and is in the The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, published by Oxford University Press. That probably goes for other contemporary British artists of that era, whose careers have been largely neglected. Conway never recorded an album, but EMI issued compilations of his recordings.—TrottieTrue (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Local musicians

With everybody and their brother having a soundcloud these days and a number of bands playing local bars, to what extent is a musician considered "notable"? Specifically I'm looking at the Jeremiah Skiba article, but I could see this question applying to any number of local acts. Lindsey40186 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Usually if they are anything like notable, they will have been noticed by something more than just local event listings magazines, even if it's just in their local area. In the case of Skeeba, none of the sources look reliable to me anyway, and I would send it to AfD: the first and last sources are the same identically-worded promotional press release, sources 2 and 3 are user-generated websites, and the fourth is just a copy of the fifth source, reproduced on the management website of the artist for promotional purposes... and that fifth source just looks like a local blog to me, and in any case it's an interview with the artist which makes it fail WP:PRIMARY. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for guideline

Musicians who performed at a major musical event (e.g. Eurovision, Coachella, Sziget) should be considered notable. --80.95.71.0 (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

If they are important enough to be invited to play at a notable event, there are likely to be enough reliable sources about the act anyway, without having to use the event as a notability requirement. Richard3120 (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

FUTUREALBUMS wording

As someone who works a lot in the music world of article creation and AFD, I struggle a bit with the current wording the the opening of WP:FUTUREALBUMS. Particularly the part that reads

In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it

This wording seems to suggest that is "rare" (special) for an album to have an article before it's release. Right or wrong, that is simply fundamentally not true. In my experience, it quite frankly pretty rare for an album to not have an article prior to its release unless it's a relatively niche/obscure musician.

I don't take issue with the guidance presented otherwise, just this suggestion that articles before release are some sort of special case. They're not. Start up an album article with 3-4 WP:RSMUSIC-approved sources and 9 times out of 10, it's kept at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre, I was mulling over opening an essentially identical discussion last night, but with respect to the future films guidelines. I think we need language in both guidelines that clearly establishes whether routine "XYZ is going to release an album/film in N months" press releases in reliable sources are sufficient promises of future coverage to establish notability or not. signed, Rosguill talk 14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that's wild, we seem to be on the same wavelength across different content areas. I don't know the film verbiage well enough to say, but I think here, honestly, if we just delete the part I bolded above for the music one, it would fix my main concern. I just don't agree with the framing that it's some sort of rare occurrence. The rest of it seems fairly accurate to how we handle things. It's accurate to how we'd handle a cancelled unreleased album, but not your run-of-the-mill album announced for release in a month or two. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the crux of the issue is in the evaluation of the sources used to write the article about a future album/film. If we applied the standard that we need significant, non-routine coverage of the subject, then IMO A few special cases is an accurate description of how frequently albums/films/songs/etc. solidly meet notability guidelines prior to their release. In practice, the current standard is that routine coverage is enough for media in advance of its release, even if it isn't normally considered valid evidence towards notability for other topics or even for media post-release, is considered sufficient for upcoming media. There's a line of reasoning attached to it that particularly for productions featuring multiple notable actors/artists/etc. is guaranteed to produce future coverage given sufficient routine coverage, either in the form of reviews once released, or investigative journalism if the project is cancelled. That's a fine standard when we only consider media from regions not hurt by systemic bias, but becomes really painful to assess when evaluating media from topics like regional Indian cinema, where even seemingly household-name actors struggle to generate independent coverage (in the case of Indian film, such actors and films receive a lot of puff-PR coverage and interviews, but scant material that is clearly encyclopedia-quality RS).
In other words, I think we need to decide as a community whether articles about upcoming media with available routine coverage should be the exception or the rule, and rewrite FUTUREALBUMS and FUTUREFILM accordingly. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I hear you, and that makes sense. I'm just saying, anecdotally, it really appears that the community has already decided. I'm very active at AFD and scenarios like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackpot Juicer or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Fvck are pretty common. And I've probably created 8-10 album articles over the course of the last year prior to the respective album being released, without a single issue. I don't just mean no AFD, I mean not even a revert or a talk page discussion about notability. And I know a lot of editors follow my edits around, so it's not like I'm flying under the radar either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree... there's an informal consensus that a notable artist releasing their fifth, sixth, seventh etc. album is then the upcoming work will be notable. There are other good rules that apply like WP:HAMMER. There's always the principle that if there isn't much to say beyond the album title then a mention at the parent artist's page but otherwise fans will ensure articles are made. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 17:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I think perhaps the consensus is less cut-and-dry for film and TV than for music, as I see a fair amount of revert-war and AfD grief over articles about upcoming media in those categories. I'd chalk it up to chance and editor demographics that the informal consensus appears to be stronger around albums, as I'm not sure I really see much of a difference as far as the actual rate and quality of coverage between the topics. signed, Rosguill talk 18:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree with that assessment 100%. I don't know if film fans are as likely to flock to wikipedia to start pages as much as music fans are. 18:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC) >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
And to be clear, I dont generally start any articles unless I've got 4-5 solid, dedicated sources and can write 2-3 paragraphs of prose. There's still plenty of debate over people creating super short articles with 1-2 sources and 1-2 sentences of prose over the necessity of having an article prior to release. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

At NPP I see a lot of future albums, movies / tv shows. Nowadays those can be huge or something someone made in their basement for YouTube or posting on a music sale web site. Two observations. "Future" is the point where the existence of Wikipedia article most benefits/ makes a difference for them financially, and so has the most "ginning up"/ maxing out of available references. Wiki's standards sometimes calibrate for this type of thing. (e.g. NCORP being tougher than other topics). So perhaps that would be sound reasoning for making "future" articles on moneymaking ventures a bit tougher. The other note is that albums and songs have a much better and easier merge target / incubation spot than things like movies which is the artist's article. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand where you're going with this. I'm saying the bolded part doesn't represent the community's current norms or sentiments. It almost sounds like you're in favor of actually making it stricter, which would be even farther away from where the community is currently at. Editors already aren't upholding the current sentiment, what makes you think they'd uphold a stricter one? I have to have these talks on the Wikiproject level from time to time too: We need to make standards that people are generally going willing and able to follow. Otherwise they won't be enforceable and it'll be pointless. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, I was just adding thoughts without weighing in on the specific question and didn't mean to imply an answer on that. I agree with your thought in the OP. I'd support the the proposed change although I think it will matter only to conscientious thorough people like you. Normally these get in throuh GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Apologies if I came on too strong. I just didn't want the discussion heading off in the opposite direction. Thanks for your input. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
You didn't come on too strong. You just gracefully pointed out things that needed pointing out. North8000 (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you are making a lot of sense. After all, if it was so rare to have articles about albums before they are released, we wouldn't have Category:Upcoming albums or the "Future" line in the table here. Richard3120 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Acceptable sources for discography entries

Moved question to here, input welcome. Acousmana 09:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability of Music Awards

Is there a guide or list of accepted notable Music Awards, that can be included on "List of awards and nominations received by <artist>" pages?

For example, the Gold Derby Music Awards appear to be determined by the votes of members of an online forum and these award "wins" appear on some awards and nominations pages, including pages for popular artists such as Ariana Grande and Taylor Swift. How are these awards notable and what makes them more notable than a poll on r/Music or r/musictheory on reddit (to give just two examples)? There is nothing to indicate that the members on Gold Derby are more qualified to judge the best songs and albums than the music communities on reddit and other forums.

Another one is the "AMFT Awards", which do not have their own page on Wikipedia. Searching google for "amft awards", it appears that someone has created an amft-awards.jimdosite.com site on jimdo.com and created lists of award winners. The most recent list of winners is from 2020 (was there no music from 2021 worthy of an award?). The creator of the "AMFT Awards" site appears to list a history of award winners going back to 2010, but if you expand the winners lists for 2012 and earlier, those older awards lists are just copy and paste from the 2019 awards. This seems more like an unfinished personal site than a real awards organisation. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 04:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned that another user has nominated the Gold Derby page for deletion. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I applaud your request for clarity but IMO you are asking two different questions, one of them misguided, and are missing a third needed one. Remembering that in Wikipedia "wp:notability" means a certain thing, and refers only to suitability of a topic for having a separate article, IMO two good questions are:

  • SNG type criteria for existence of a separate article on the award
  • Does the award count toward fulfilling "award" type criteria in an SNG regarding the artist or the work?

IMO the misguided part of the question implies that there is a specific criteria for awards that must be met to merely be included in a "list of awards" for the artist, and there is not such criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with North8000 here. The thing to keep in mind is that there can be a significant difference between "an award that is acceptable to mention in the awards list of a person who has already cleared the notability bar as it is" and "award that is notable enough to make its winners or nominees notable because they won or were nominated for that specific award" — the former can be satisfied by a fairly wide range of awards, while the latter is a much more restrictive criterion that expressly limits itself to certain very high-profile national awards (Junos, Grammys, Brits, Polaris, Mercury, etc.) An award can be the former while not being the latter — just because the Gold Derby Awards aren't highly meganotable enough to bestow the notability on its winners doesn't mean it isn't even notable enough to mention in the biography of a musician who had already cleared the bar. Obviously nobody would ever seriously try to claim that the Gold Derby Award was in and of itself the thing that made Ariana Grande or Taylor Swift notable enough to have articles in the first place — but since they were both already notable anyway, it's not unreasonable for it to be mentioned in their articles so long as it isn't given WP:UNDUE weight. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NSONG

So first the song is notable, but then it suddenly might not be notable? This point contradicts itself. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe the sentiment is meant to be more like "it may be notable, but it's not confirmation that it's notable." Basically like, "it's a good sign that it's notable". It's basically so people dont go making one sentence article about every song that peaks at 99 on a Country chart or something. Third party sourcing and content to be written is still necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing a contradiction here. The text that introduces the list of which this is one of the bullets says: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. This is similar to other SNGs. e.g. WP:NSPORT begins: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. Colin M (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:NALBUMS has similar ones too. They're not guarantees, but they're good indicators. And failing all of them is generally a pretty bad sign for notability as well. And some content areas just don't have them at all. We tried to draft up a WP:NVIDEOGAMES or something years back, and the community couldn't really come up with any industry-specific guidance. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
No contradiction here. Charting alone is not enough. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Erpert, don't conflate "is" with "may be". They're not synonymous as your comment suggests. Such a common misconception is like saying "could be" (i.e. a possibility) has the same guarantee as "will be" (a definite). Contrary to what certain people think, entering a chart does not by itself inherently mean something warrants a page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've had this discussion with Erpert before about Top of the World (Kimbra song), a song I don't think is the slightest bit notable (the NZ Hot Singles chart is not the main NZ chart, or even the NZ "bubbling under" chart, it's the bubbling under chart reserved exclusively for NZ artists, and it still only managed a single week on that chart). So I do think that Sergecross73's "one sentence article about every song that peaks at 99 on a Country chart or something" is valid here. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I see people act like "may be notable" means "is notable" a lot, not just with music. It gets really tiring having to repeatedly explain the difference. IMO the various guidelines should have the word changed or clarified so there isn't the ambiguity or disagreements about it anymore. I think way to many people misunderstand the language to just chalk it up to a lack of understanding by any individual person though. The wording just isn't as clear as it could and should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a suggested wording? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"can be notable if", "Might be notable if"? I'm sure there's other other ways to phrase it if either of those don't work. I'm not really hung up on the exact wording though. I'd be just as happy with there being a disclaimer that "may" is not a guarantee of notability and WP:GNG or whatever special notability guideline still needs to be applied even when one of the criteria are met. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Unless we add a sentence along the lines of "However, meeting any of the criteria below should not be taken to mean that the song is definitely notable; an article should still have enough sources to be able to create a reasonable amount of prose, and not just contain tables of chart positions or certifications". Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd support something along those lines. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I would as well. I cannot comment on other project though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Would support this! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to rewriting the guideline for added clarity, but everybody who's commented is correct: just because a thing may potentially be notable doesn't automatically mean that it is definitely notable. Charting can be a valid notability test, but it doesn't clinch notability all by itself — if a song's article can't actually be supported by any significant reliable source coverage about the song, then it isn't a suitable topic for a standalone article just because it technically charted somewhere. Like all notability criteria, it's not a question of what the article says so much as it's a question of how well the article does or doesn't support the things it says with GNG-worthy reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Aguilera Tour

New deletion discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Aguilera Tour >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Eurovision

Could Eurovision participation be an indication of notability? Ricciardo Best (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As long as the notability doesn't rely exclusively on the subject's participation in Eurovision. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Application of NMUSIC vs NCORP for recording labels and recording studios

There is a current discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Categorization_of_notability_requisite_for_record_labels,_recording_studios,_art_collectives_and_like Graywalls (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

21st century update?

I'm happy to reorient this comment if there is, but, is there any discussion that anyone is aware of on how to modernize the music notability guidelines for current practices? These guidelines may still be applicable, particularly in retrospect, but the way that music is promoted, distributed, and consumed in the year 2023 (online/social media, downloads, and streaming respectively) is completely different than it was 20 years ago. -- t_kiehne (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess there is potentially some value to finding a way to better capture popularity that comes through streaming media, but we'd want there to be independent verification of that popularity; corporate-released figures (like YouTube plays, Spotify streams, etc.) are unreliable. Billboard has been building streaming into its chart figures, and I think the de facto practice with music articles on Wikipedia is more or less to defer to national chart institutions, since they are (usually) independent and already have broad acceptance as notability indicators. Chubbles (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The three areas where I think there have been substantial changes since the guidelines were originally written are:
1. Even though it may appear in a longstanding reliable source like Rolling Stone or Billboard, many of the release announcements for songs and albums are provided and uploaded by the record label or management companies themselves, so it's not necessarily an independent source, and could be considered self-published.
2. Receiving a gold certification these days is the norm for a charting record, rather than the exception, so I'm not sure it's a great indication of notability any more.
3. Most songs, even obscure album tracks, have been used somewhere, sometime in the backing music of TV show episodes, so perhaps criterion 7 should clarify that the song needs to be a major part of the show, to the point that a reliable source has discussed it.
As a side issue, we have discussed before about integrating the "Songs" section into the "Recordings" section, given that most of it essentially duplicated the criteria for albums, and this might be a good opportunity to address that. Richard3120 (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
As I dig a little deeper, yes, it seems that the RIAA has done some integration of streaming into their certification metrics, but I haven't yet found any evidence that they consider downloads in any way. We can probably get into the weeds about industry manipulation of charts and analogous effects in streaming algorithms – e.g. can we draw any real distinction between payola to radio stations and algorithms that tend to the mean? – but that's not quite where I intended this to go.
Probably more significant is how the criteria for published works is explicitly biased against online media. For example, many established independent publications have long since stopped printing and have gone online, and newer publications don't even bother with print. Taken literally, WP:BAND #1 would reject these sources outright, and, indeed, I have had to debate whether a source is a "blog" or not solely based on the fact that they are online only.
I fully acknowledge that there have to be standards for reliability, but I feel like the criteria are – to put it non-charitably – written from the standpoint of industry capture. It is now possible (and is actually happening) that independent artists are bypassing labels and the industry by taking advantage of more direct channels and it is entirely possible for such artists to gain notability even if the criteria here don't reflect that. It's entirely possible we are trying to unify two domains: artists/entities supported by and participating in major media industry (which is, let's face it, a machine for generating its own notability) and everyone else. -- t_kiehne (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean... how artists can become major YouTube and TikTok stars with millions of followers, but as most sources about them are also on those channels, we view them as unreliable sources and non-notable. Richard3120 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, for many years on Wiki, editors pooh-poohed direct indicators of popularity of that ilk and often ridiculed people who argued that they pointed toward anything of substance. I often found that those numbers suggested it was worthwhile digging for chart and media attention and was able to substantiate WP:MUSIC on those grounds instead. I've always been open to the possibility of additional criteria that capture new media strategies for achieving stardom, but ultimately the main issue is going to be meeting WP:V. Chubbles (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I concur with all of this. The issue for me is that blogs are two-a-penny nowadays. Everyone can set a blog up and I don't think guidance for notability is always clear. Like someone's pointed out, in the streaming environment lots of singles hit a certification somewhere in the world. I'd like to get to a point where:
  1. Songs are only notable if they have been written about as a body of work in their own right, if they're mentioned in the context of an album review they are probably not notable.
  2. Thanks to the wide expansion of charts, just because something has charted, doesn't mean its notable on its own. In addition to charting, there should be information about the song as a body of work.
  3. Clarification that per WP:SONGTRIVIA and WP:COVERSONG, just because a song was used in an episode of "Grey's Anatomy", "Glee" or another media form, doesn't mean the song is notable or that fact is worth of inclusion in an encyclopedic article, unless that specific use of the song received independent coverage such.
>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 12:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Richard3120 (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
For the (no pun intended) record, the RIAA has considered downloads for quite some time now. The formula is simpler than that of streaming: generally speaking, one download equals one sales unit. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute

There is a content dispute about whether individual concerts should be added to stadium articles in advance of the concert date. Your input is welcome at Talk:SoFi Stadium#user @Magnolia677 removing concerts. --Magnolia677 (talk) 10:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Compositions: no criteria set for musical compositions

Currently there are no criteria set for compositions. I'm mainly thinking about classical compositions, but any kind of composition that has been published should have a set of criteria to determine whether it is notable enough for inclusion.

Some criteria I propose to determine a compositions to be included are:

  • Has been performed by a prominent performer (soloist, orchestra, conductor, ...)
  • Has been recorded and released on a prominent major or indie record label
  • Has been written by a prominent composer
  • Has been arranged, variated or edited by a prominent composer
  • Has been published by a major music publisher
  • Has been covered sufficient in musical literature
  • ...

I hope this can be picked up and discussed further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aszazin (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say for popular music compositions, being a hit song on a national chart is suitable criteria for notability. A pop single having been released on a major label does not confer notability in itself, IMO. TrottieTrue (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

First a couple of structural notes:

  • This page isn't the page that determines wp:notability, This sets up a second "way in" to meet the wp:notability requirement, with the primary way being wp:GNG
  • In this page we're not talking about a criteria for mere inclusion, we're talking about about a criteria for having a separate article. I realize that the OP may not have intended that, but that's what it says and so that should be clarified.

In this light, IMHO the above is pretty far off base. Basically says that any composition that meets any one of the first 5 criteria bypasses wp:GNG and gets a separate article on the one composition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I am effectively suggesting criteria which justify a separate article in regards to notability.
This page is indeed not the main wp:GNG, but it contains practical information specific for music, as a General guideline is very broad. The existing chapters for this article are very helpful, but written music is not covered here, while up to the early 20th century, written music was the primary way to spread music, other than the oral way. That is prior to the development & accessibility of recorded music.
The above criteria are mere suggestions. My main point here is: maybe we should also include a chapter specific towards published compositions, as these sometimes get their own article. Currently there is no specific guidance written out for these. What I write doesn't say any composition that meets the first five criteria would bypass wp:GNG and gets a separate article on the composition. It's suggests criteria that can be taken into account, in setting up a chapter regarding notability of written musical compositions. Apart from notability, there are more things to take into account before setting up a separate article anyway.
I don't think it's far off base (unless you consider what I suggest as a finished chapter already.)
I think this should be discussed, and when a set of criteria is developed, we can try to check them against real examples: do the criteria work well in including works which are without doubt (by common sense) notable enough for a separate article, & do the exclude works which without doubt are absolutely not notable enough for a separate article.
Or tl;td: I'm looking for more input & suggestions regarding a chapter on written/published compositions. Aszazin (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably-detailed based on facts independent of the original.

Anyone else think this should be changed to WP:NCOVER, which states "When a song has been recorded or performed by more than one artist, a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article)"? I'm looking to change the guidelines. We shouldn't be clogging up our encyclopedia with worthless cover versions, this also creates confusion for the reader, etc... When did the new version get changed? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

NCOVER should be changed. I believe the most recent discussion about this is Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_23#Really,_a_cover_can_never_have_an_independent_article?. Chubbles (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

N:BAND #5 concerns

Courtesy notice: I don't like how it is currently defined, so I started a discussion. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Concerns_about_NBAND_#5. Thanks, Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Does UK "Classical Artist Albums Chart number ones" make notable?

Isata Kanneh-Mason Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess we're talking about a performer, rather than a composer here, but so long as WP:V is met (e.g., chart data from a reliable source), that's sufficient to pass muster. Chubbles (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new page about an English band

I am not a registered user and don't plan on being one, so I can't create pages. The thing is, I've seen lots of really tiny bands with no merit material make it to Wikipedia for whatever reason. And I have one band in mind that has recorded four albums in VERY consistent manner. They've been interviewed by many websites and are active now. I don't intend that the information below be the whole page available on said band, only that it represent the beginning of a new entry. I'm in another country and in no way connected to the band. I just want to contribute an entry I found important for music fans. Thank you.

It's Karma It's Cool

It's Karma It's Cool (often abbreviated IKIC) are a guitar pop/indie pop/power pop/alternative pop band from Lincoln, UK, active since 2018. Its members are James Styring (vocals), Martyn Bewick (guitars), Mikey Barraclough (bass and occasional guitar) and Danny Krash (drums).

So far, they have released four albums and a number of singles:

- Hipsters and Aeroplanes (2019)

- Woke Up In Hollywood (2020)

- Homesick for our Future Destinations (2021)

- Thrift Store Troubadours (2023)

Lots of other information on the band's origins, as well as the singles extracted from each album and statements by band members can be found on:

Their official Bandcamp page: https://itskarmaitscool.bandcamp.com/

Their official Facebook profile: https://www.facebook.com/itskarmaitscool/

One official picture: https://i0.wp.com/www.angrybaby.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Its-Karma-Its-Cool.jpg?w=829&ssl=1 (front to back/left to right: Barraclough, Krash, Styring, Bewick).

- 45.6.128.207 (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

So, to add an article about this band, what we need are solid indications that this group meets the notability guidelines on this page (that is, on the flip side of the talk page). At least in theory, every band with an article on this website is supposed to meet those guidelines, and the overwhelming majority of them in fact do. So if we had indicators, like if the band charted on the UK Albums or Singles chart, or if they got written up in major publications like NME, Mojo, Uncut, etc., then it'd be a fairly easy process to get the group an article. Chubbles (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Chubbles. I'll look into it and come back with a reply asap. - 45.6.128.207 (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
PS: I find it weird that bands like Spycatcher or Swim Deep don't seem to obey those principles, but have entries anyway (and I'm glad they do!), whereas a band like Night Flowers had a song featured prominently on a popular show like Sex Education and doesn't have an entry. I know the system is not supposed to be perfect, but... - 45.6.129.13 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
In what way are Swim Deep not meeting those principles? Their article is making numerous notability claims that meet NMUSIC criteria, and is citing solid reliable sources to support most of them — I'll grant that there are some non-ideal blogs or primary sources in the mix that could stand to be replaced with better sources, but the bulk of the sourcing is gold-standard publications like NME and Rolling Stone and The Guardian. Spycatcher, on the other hand, do have a weaker article that's not citing solid sources, and can have its includability reconsidered anytime somebody deigns to initiate a deletion discussion on it — which I'll give you three guesses what I just did — but it is still attempting to claim passage of the touring criterion in NMUSIC even if it isn't sourcing that properly.
But that's also why we have an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule that's worth reading: just because Article A is bad and fails to meet NMUSIC criteria does not mean that a new Article B about a different band would be exempted from having to meet NMUSIC criteria, it means that the existence of Article A needs to be reconsidered. Bearcat (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I guess the Swim Deep article just doesn't meet the principles in that they never charted or don't seem to have, but idk. I'm not a member or admin here, and I'm always glad there are articles and more information on bands and albums most people don't know about, and especially on smaller bands that are actually making a true effort, as is the case of all mentioned. - 45.6.129.13 (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:REALITYSINGER

Does WP:REALITYSINGER apply to bands as well? - Pottyantós WC (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarity needed for criterion #11 with respect to internet radio

I observed this edit by the subject of the draft (a one-man-band) in an attempt to meet WP:BAND #11 ("Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network"). Apparently he's convinced himself that a streaming music service qualifies as a "major radio or music television network."

This criterion might be a source of confusion nowadays because it was written in 2008, before streaming music services, particularly internet radio, became widely available. Spotify, for example, wasn't even available in the United Statis or the UK until after 2010. Same for mSpot.

Some clarity is needed about whether being in rotation on a streaming platform counts toward notability. My inclination is to say that this doesn't confer notability. Especially considering that Spotify offers advice for unsigned artists to self-publish their music on Spotify.

It's like a wine appearing on a scorecard in Wine Spectator doesn't make a wine notable, because such publications evaluate thousands of wines. That's their function. Internet radio services are similar; they want to maximize the size of their catalog because that's part of their business model. These services can cheaply stream songs from all manner of non-notable obscure artists as a means to attract niche audiences, with no downside. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole idea is that terrestrial radio and television had limited airtime, so any band breaking into that rotation was a significant accomplishment, but anybody can get a song on Spotify. However, there might be a more restrictive component of major Internet radio stations that could conceivably qualify; I don't use Spotify, but something akin to the Bandcamp Album of the Day is closer to the spirit of #11. Chubbles (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Major music award

I searched archives here but could not find a definitive answer on what constitutes a "major music award" per WP:NMUSICIAN #8 which states, "has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." The question I have stems from an AfD I initiated for Nkosazana Daughter. Would like feedback on whether "Soundcity MVP Award" or "Basadi in Music Award" would be considered a "major music award" per the guideline. Hoping for feedback to determine if I should withdraw the nomination which I will do if they are considered such. CNMall41 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not South African, but the Basadi in Music Awards are covered by major South African newspapers (e.g., [4], [5]), so I would argue yes on WP:MUSIC #8. Chubbles (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Generally, we look to reliable sources to tell us whether an award is "major" or not. An award that gets GNG-worthy coverage about it, so that you can reference "so-and-so musician wins such-and-such award" to a piece of journalism that treats it as news, is generally valid, while an award that doesn't get GNG-worthy coverage, so that you have to reference "so-and-so musician wins such-and-such award" to the award's own self-published content about itself due to the lack of any third-party coverage that treats said award as significant, does not meet the test.
Some caution is of course needed, as there are some instances where an award does have the necessary type of GNG-worthy third party media coverage but an award statement has still been inappropriately cited to the award's self-published content instead of the GNG-worthy third party media coverage anyway — but the key still hinges on whether the award has media coverage or not, so when you find an award like that it counts as notable if the bad primary source can be replaced with a better one, and does not count as notable if it can't. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

New criterion or modification to #6?

One day, I would like to start systematically creating stub articles on old jazz musicians with print sourcing, and a useful heuristic for meeting GNG would be something along the lines of Has lead multiple otherwise notable musicians in a professional, touring ensemble. "Professional" gets rid of uncovered high school band directors and the like, and "touring" eliminates house bands. Thoughts? Mach61 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, the number-one thing I think is missing from this notability list (and other notability lists) is, "has an article in a major encyclopedia or biographical dictionary". I see no earthly reason why we should choose not to have an article on a topic that another third-party reference work has declared noteworthy, and yet I have at times had squabbles at AfD with people who've argued that an encyclopedia is only one source and so is insufficient to meet the GNG. I imagine that much of the work you'd be doing (much like I did in the past) would be comprehensively combing biographical encyclopedias for missing articles and infilling; including this criterion would do much of the notability work that you're wanting to do here. That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to the original proposal, though I guess I wonder, what sort of examples do we have of musicians who fit that description who don't meet any of the other existing criteria? The one that springs to mind is Mal Hallett, who rarely gets covered in jazz encyclopedias despite having a shockingly impressive band roster. But he already has an article that, so far, hasn't been challenged. Chubbles (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
How do we define "professional"? Being a musician is not like a formal profession where you get a degree or an authorization to operate as such. Are AC/DC or the Rolling Stones "professional"? As for "touring", what about bands content to play just within their own city? Cambalachero (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
"Professional" as in full time job, "touring" as in multiple cities (but same state is OK). Mach61 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Sounds a bit arbitrary. Cambalachero (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not arbitrary, it's based on what is most likely to indicate coverage in sources in my experience. Mach61 (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
GNG requires multiple sources, not just one. An article in a major encyclopedia or biographical dictionary would certainly count as a data point toward the meeting of NMUSIC #1 — but it wouldn't be enough all by itself if it was somehow the only source the musician had. I can't imagine a case where a musician could possibly even have an article in a major encyclopedia or biographical dictionary at all without also having other coverage elsewhere — if they had actually attained enough notability to get into an encyclopedia at all, then it's utterly unfathomable that they could somehow not have any other coverage anywhere else — so it really isn't needed as its own standalone criterion independently of being assessed within #1.
That said, another thing we would need to watch out for is unreliable sources that call themselves "encyclopedias" or "biographical dictionaries" — this, for example, is not really a genuine or WP:GNG-worthy "encyclopedia", but merely a blog that uses the word "encyclopedia" in its name — so we would still need to assess whether any supposed "encyclopedia" or "biographical dictionary" was really a reliable source or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record

WP:BAND has, as a sub-bullet of criteria one, a clarification that works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, articles giving release information or track listings, or publications of contact and booking details in directories do not establish notability. I BOLDLY removed that subbullet, noting that the sentence was entirely redundant with the initial bullet, which already disallowed non-trivial published works, but was reverted for lack of discussion. So here's the discussion, I guess. Mach61 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I kind of think that the paragraph above Criterion 1 should be moved underneath the 12 criteria... it's getting in the way of the opening sentence that finishes "...that meet the following criteria", and would then act as a summary of the criteria listed above it. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Grammy?

Basically having a Grammy or have been nominated meets the guidelines? For example, If we have groups such as the Marvelettes, Honey Cone, and Martha and the Vandellas that are on this encyclopedia that have not won or have been nominated Grammies does this matter such? They had a gold record in the US, but Grammies? TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A Grammy award would certainly count as a notability claim, but it isn't a necessary condition in and of itself. A musician who has won or been nominated for a Grammy would likely be notable on that basis, but a musician who has never won or been nominated for a Grammy still has numerous other notability criteria they can meet besides that. So no, a Grammy is not essential to musical notability, because people without Grammies can still be notable for other reasons despite not having a Grammy on their shelf. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I was just pointing that out when I read a sentence that said

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions.

TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
That wording has to do with people who have sometimes claimed that an individual session musician passed the award criterion because they had played on albums that other people got award nominations for. So again, the point of it isn't to say that a Grammy award is a necessary precondition for getting a Wikipedia article — it's just to say "don't try to use this particular criterion as a notability claim if the person you're talking about wasn't actually a nominee or winner themselves, but you are still free to shoot for other criteria if you can". Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder, (and with some inaccuracy and oversimplification for the sake of brevity), need to meet either this SNG or GNG to have an article. Meeting this SNG isn't a requirement to have an article, it's a requirement to bypass GNG. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_23&oldid=1233330818"