Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

NSONG clarification

Given this AfD, I have a couple questions:

• 1 - The main argument for keeping, it seems, was that the song charted. Should NSONG#1 be amended to say that "a song is presumed notable if it charts" (i.e, regardless of coverage)? If not, should NSONG#1 be re-worded to say "A song is not notable just because it charted. It must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources."
• 2 - Another argument for keeping was the number of references which discussed the song. Those mentions, however, were entirely (a) trivial/in passing/within the context of an album review, (b) not independent of the subject/label, or (c) unreliable. If the sum of this coverage results in "a reasonably detailed article", should that override that none of the coverage is "significant"?

I understand there are always gray areas, and that notability is considered on a case-by-case basis. That said, I think the guideline can be written more clearly to avoid confusion, on my part as much as anyone. Any feedback would be appreciated.  Gong show 19:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether a song/single is notable and whether it merits a standalone article are two separate issues, as the existing guideline indicates. Just appearing somewhere on a chart isn't enough for a standalone article as that information can easily be incorporated into the article on the album, although a high placing on a major chart indicates real world 'notability'. Consensus in this case was (narrowly at best) that this should be kept. The chart placing (and presumably the amount of airplay it received) is just about enough to give it enough real world significance (I know Wikipedia and the real world to some extent parted company some time ago, but this should be a consideration), the real issue here is whether it should be merged or kept as a standalone article. Looking at the article, I would say that there is a valid argument that there is sufficient content to merit a standalone article versus merging to the album, even if the fluff was taken out, and in my view it's real world significance and the amount of verifiable encyclopedic content which are the more sensible considerations rather than the existence of significant coverage (the existence of significant coverage should be seen as an indicator of significance and sufficient content rather than an end in itself). I don't see this as a problem with the guideline - this one falls into the "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" clause, at least according to consensus in the AfD discussion. --Michig (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Simply put, the song definitely is not at all notable enough to have its own article. Too little encyclopediac verifiable information, and no impact/significance on her career, society, or the music industry. There might be enough for an article at Wikia or something, though. In addition to multiple reliable sources going in-depth on it, the in-depth coverage/information should mention how/why it is significant. There is absolutely no reliable source that does that. As @Lankiveil: indicated, the only two charts it got listed under are not notable, and the positions they reached weren't exactly high enough to be significant to begin with. The South Korea chart used is just a download chart anyway. It would also probably need at least several notable charts. That is what I'd rephrase it to indicate. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking again, the Australian chart doesn't seem to constitute a national singles chart, so maybe in this case it doesn't have such real world significance. I still don't see this as a problem with the guideline - consensus at the AfD simply didn't perhaps follow it in this case. I think the 'several notable charts' idea is a non-starter as plenty of singles only chart in one country, and a huge hit in Poland or Japan that didn't chart anywhere else is still likely to be 'notable'. --Michig (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this particular Australian chart doesn't seem to be a singles chart. I'm not too sure if there really was any consensus in this case. Another big point mentioned in WP:NSONGS that the "keep" voters misunderstood and/or overlooked was that coverage within album reviews does NOT count as notable coverage or make the song notable at all. The vast majority if not all of the reliable sources that talk about the song were only from album reviews, and were only briefly discussed. With all of this being said, is it perhaps better to redirect after discussion through song talk page itself or another AfD? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither, Wikipedia:Deletion review is the correct venue, other kind of action would be reversed. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people misread the 3 points in WP:NSONGS as "criteria" for passing notability requirements. That's not what it says at all. The criteria is noted in the first paragraph. Charts, awards and cover versions by notable artists only "suggest" that a song may be notable, which means coverage is probably out there and a standalone could possibly be developed if one does the research. If the only thing that can be found about a song is that is reached #45 on the UK Singles Chart, it should not have its own article. However, a redirect is entirely appropriate (such as a discography page of the artist where that chart info can be listed). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, WP:NSONGS was misunderstood. Despite this, when I took it to deletion review every voter there ignored that and endorsed the decision to keep (it really shouldn't have been kept as it fails both WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG). I would start a 3rd AfD, though it seems somewhat soon to do so. Feel free to start it back up yourself, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, when the time feels right. There is no in-depth coverage from reliable sources that isn't from album reviews, self-promotion (own artist talking about track), or album performance reviews (i.e. tours). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording proposal for "WP:NALBUMS"

I would like to revise "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article", to say:

"Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately redirected and merged into the artist's main article or discography article"

adding "redirect and" to the phrase. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Support seems fine to me XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep as is. Per WP:MERGE, merging creates a redirect from the source page to the destination page. Therefore, if an article has been merged, it means it has also been redirected. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. In some instances it turns out that a merge is impractical or unnecessary and a redirect is the better solution. For example, with this album article currently at AfD, what material is worth merging and into which article? At most, a redirect to Rick Astley discography seems sufficient. With that in mind, I can get with the guideline stating "redirected or merged".  Gongshow   talk 00:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Question correct me if I'm wrong, Gongshow, but is the difference between "redirect" and "merge" that "redirect" blanks the page entirely for a redirect while "merge" does the same but uses some of its material on the page it redirects to? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, basically that's it. A merge adds some of the content (from the album article, in this case) to the target page (the artist/discography article). This action also leaves a redirect in place. A redirect by itself adds no content to the target page.  Gongshow   talk 00:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording proposal for WP:NSONGS

There seems to be some misunderstanding about "reasonably detailed" and in-depth coverage. Some users seem to think that if an article can be extended beyond a stub, that by itself is notable. The flaw is that requirement to have in-depth coverage NOT from album reviews is often overlooked along with the "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" bit. Rather than "notability aside", I would suggest replacing it with "In addition to coverage independent of an album" before the "a standalone article is only appropriate when....." bit. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that a rephrasing of the "notability aside" might be beneficial. I'm not a big fan of articles relying on liner notes and passing mentions in an effort to "pad" the length of an article to get past the stub threshold.  Gongshow   talk 01:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The question is how it should be rephrased. Also, commentary from artists/groups themselves or anyone involved with the creation process doesn't count as notable coverage no matter how in-depth they go. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

About NMUSICBIO

I want to query criteria 2 and 3. It implies that if an artist either has one single or album either chart on a national chart (including genre charts), or has been certified gold, then that artist is notable. However, if a single or album charts or is certified gold, according to WP:NALBUMS, if there is no other coverage, the single or album is not notable. So, the guideline currently has the strange implication that a person can become notable for creating something which by our own rules is not notable. I think it makes more sense to change 2 and 3 to "Has had multiple ..." Note that I am only trying to close the loophole for artists who only have one album (charted or certified gold) - for which there is no other independent coverage. Artists with a single work that has independent coverage would fulfill criteria 1. Darx9url (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There probably hasn't ever been an album or single that was certified gold and didn't receive any coverage. --Michig (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That may be true for gold records (how about a source?) but it's just not true for albums that chart. There are many albums that chart that have zero discussion. Here's one example - #10 this week on Billboard's New Age albums - 50 Tracks: Relaxing Spanish Spa Guitar Message Tribe. A google search doesn't show any discussion of this album in any reliable source. Anyway, if what you say is true, there is no need for criteria 2 & 3 anyway, since the independent coverage would satisfy criteria 1. Darx9url (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a conflict myself. As the page say, if an album doesn't have significant coverage, it's appropriate merged into the artist bio. Hence, if there were some remarkable circumstances in which album was certified gold but lacked independent coverage, it would still be appropriate to redirect the album title to the artist and reference the status at the artist's page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So you hold the opinion that if someone has a record go gold (with no coverage in reliable sources), that by itself makes the person notable. But the the gold record itself is not notable enough for an independent article? How about a record that charts for a week at number 99? Darx9url (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I hold the opinion that the guideline makes sense. :) The record itself is notable enough for an independent article if there is significant coverage about it. Otherwise, the article would consist of perhaps a track list and a note that it went gold - which is sufficient for inclusion in an artist's article but not in an independent article. We shouldn't confuse notability with significance or importance - as WP:N says, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article." It isn't that the album that went gold is less significant than the artist who released it, but that in those cases the artist may have an article, where it may not be appropriate for the album to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that. But how about a record that charts at #99 for a week, and no RS coverage of either the record or the artist anywhere. Is the artist still notable enough for an article? Darx9url (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

C2 criterion

Does C2 criterion apply to music producers? Or is it only for the musicians who made the music? -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal vacuum

Hi,

I'm currently voicing the music genre articles: Tribal house, Future garage, UK garage, Dub techno, Oldschool jungle, Techstep. The aim is to display a music example to help the reader to understand the content of the article. To do this, I search CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensed tracks. Most of them is not notable but notability criteria can't be applied here. However, it seems that the contributors don't completely agree or don't care. The track examples are often erased for nothing or removed because they are not notable, which is not a good reason.

I want to know if I should:

1. had the credit on the article, which is not very good because the track is not notable,
2. Not display the credit, which is not correctly encyclopedic and professional,
3. Add a link to the file page.

I think this case should be described in this page. Ftiercel (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Weight of the songwriter's opinion of his own song?

So I have been informed that the Waylon Jennings song now titled as I Do Believe (The Highwaymen song) is probably not notable because it never made the charts or got a lot of coverage. But what is referenced in the article is that Waylon Jennings himself thought it to be the best song he ever wrote. And ought that not count for something towards the notability of the song, that the extremely notable songwriter/performer of it considered it to be his finest work? And since this particular song was released on more than one album, where would it even merge to if not notable by its self? DeistCosmos (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The importance of a fact is not determined on whether or not it has it's own stand alone article. If Jennings thought that, then it would be a good fact to have on his article. That said, if the song itself did not achieve much critical acclaim or success, then having an entire article on it does not really seem appropriate. Alternatively, if Jennings has a fairly long discography then a paragraph could be included there but this actually seems like a genuinely interesting piece of information about Jennings artistry which surely there must be room to talk about it. Mkdw^talk 05:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "Placed"

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary and OED exact definition of the word "placed" as an intransitive verb and used in relationship to finishing result in competition means to place second. Dictionary.com opens the definition to mean placing in the top three. If it is the interpretation of the community that "placed" used in criterion #8 and #11 of WP:MUSICBIO could include placements lower than third (at best) then I recommend the word be changed to something that doesn't technically define as contrary to that interpretation. In the meantime I have added a footnote with the definition of placed and it can be removed if the word is changed or the community does not interpret it to mean the actual definition. At present since nothing else is specified, adding the definition of the currently used word does not change the meaning of it. Mkdw^talk 06:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It does change the meaning if the intention before was not to limit it to the top two in a competition. I would have thought top 3 or sometimes top 4 or more would be more applicable here, depending on the competition, e.g. for Grammy's 'placed' would include the four on the final list that didn't win. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a reason that the bet description is "win, place, or show". First, second, and third, respectively.—Kww(talk) 06:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a US definition. In Britain 'placed' means first three. But we're not talking horse racing here. Surely reaching the final stages of a competition is the relevant factor here. e.g. last weekend of X Factor (3 or 4? Can't remember), final list of nominees for Grammys, Brit Awards, Junos, etc. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me but I've never heard of someone "placing" at the Grammy's. There's a reason we say nominations and not placed for that criteria and using things like Grammys and Junos to change a totally unrelated criteria should be avoided. If you think it means third or forth then we should change the word being used because first, place, and show are fairly standard across competition (not just horse racing) and there are plenty of sources to support this including dictionary definitions. I'm fine with including third as a variation as it's a recognized definition by some dictionaries but to suggest it includes more beyond that is contrary to the definition. Let's also keep in mind that we're talking about two things here. One the recognized definition of the word, and secondly if anyone thinks it means more than 3rd they're talking about changing the criteria to something different. The word would need to be changed from "placed" and I'm not in favour of that. Mkdw^talk 07:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Show" has no meaning in a lot of countries outside the US. With Grammys there's a winner and the remaining four on the shortlist who didn't win. Actually "placed" in horse racing can include different numbers of finishers depending on how many horses are in the race (e.g. see this). We should be realistic about how far down a list of finishers in a *major music competition* equates to notability rather than pointless arguments about dictionary definitions. There are certainly some where notability will extend beyond the first 2 and possibly also the first 3 - it will vary between competitions, so trying to tie it down to something very specific might be a little pointless. Remember this is only supposed to be a "rule of thumb", not a rule. --Michig (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"But we're not talking horse racing here" (and there is a definition of placed used not in the context of horse racing) nor are we talking about the Grammy Awards or other awards since it has it's own criteria. As I said earlier, those examples have nothing to do with competition criteria and bringing them up over and over doesn't really accomplish anything. Michig, as I said again, I am open to changing the criteria to be open to including more positions at the finish of music competition, but I do not think that trying to change the literal meaning of the word is the way to do it. If you're bent on opening up the criteria perhaps open another discussion to change the wording so it's clear. In the meantime, the definition of the word stands. Its not a pointless argument because the word means what it means. You cannot change it with your personal opinion in direct contrast to an existing definition because you want the word to do something it doesn't actually mean. That seems really strange to me. Whether we use the British or the American cited definition, top 3 or top 2, it clearly does not include positions lower than that. There's a reason we have credible dictionaries that tell us what words mean rather than everyone making up their own meaning. So to be clear, I am in favour of changing the wording, to another word than "placed" but I am not in favour of making up a Wikipedia definition of the word "placed" with only the personal opinion of a few editors. Mkdw^talk 20:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've explained clearly enough that there is not one single meaning of 'placed', even in dictionaries, so hopefully we can drop the attempts to impose one rigid definition into the guidelines, which is where this started. Do you have a proposed change to the wording that we can consider, that reflects current consensus, which is what the guideline should do? As an example, in practice how far down the X Factor results are contestants notable by Wikipedia standards? We currently have articles that have stood the test of time on 7 of the final 12 turns from UK Series 9. --Michig (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It started when you started taking the meaning to be something that wasn't reflected in any definition anywhere, "sometimes top 4 or more". I was fully supportive of allowing either definition which includes second or third place. Changing the criteria to include other placements beyond the meaning of "placed" was not my original intent and more your cause than mine. I'll leave that up to you but I would be willing to support your proposal if you find the right wording. Mkdw^talk 03:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It started here as far as my involvement is concerned. I don't think it is possible to specify a number of positions that would indicate notability for all major competitions, as they'll all be different. If the interpretation of "placed" is problematic then we should change it, maybe with "highly placed" which isn't particularly specific, but I don't think we can be - we would need to look at each competition separately and even then it will vary from one case to another. --Michig (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more difficult I find it to be to execute. There are so many competitions that having a look at each one and creating a list of what finishing place we recognize as being notable seems daunting. That's not to say it's not impossible since MMA created a list of top tier promotions but they only recognize wins and you need 3 of them to meet the criteria. Highly placed leaves it as ambiguous and simply takes the word from the meaning to one with no specific meaning. I've been trying to find the original conversation where the wording for that criteria was discussed but I'm not having much luck. Have you been able to find it? Hoping it will provide some insight on the intention. Otherwise perhaps we leave it to mean "placed" and if they're notable then they'll meet the other criteria e.g. released multiple albums from a major record label etc. I think the biggest challenge is that so many competitors that even finish in the top 3 often do not go onto notable music careers and only become known for their participation in that one competition. I think whatever criteria that ends up being there should be able to eliminate most of those contestants that fit that description while still opening up the way for contests that do end up having a relatively notable career. Mkdw^talk 21:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability of allmusic review

Is there a guidance list somewhere of what sources count as notable? I'm thinking particular of albums (of which I've seen several recently) with not a single Google Book hit, and only allmusic review as sole source. Is Allmusic.com alone a sufficient source to establish notability? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Or put another way, does an album with no source except an Allmusic review, and no trace in Google Books pass notability for albums?? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic reviews are rarely if ever notable, but I don't think that's what you mean - Allmusic is a reliable source and is valid in considering whether an album is notable. If an Allmusic review is all that is found then there probably won't be a basis for a meaningful article. It's quite possible (likely even for older albums) that other reviews will exist even if nothing is found on Google - very few commercially released albums get no coverage at all. --Michig (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Michig, thank you, yes that was what I was asking. I'm aware that for older songs/albums sources are often not online. Though CMJ and Billboard are uploaded into Google Books. If an album is notable presumably CMJ and Billboard would have mentioned? For modern albums with nothing but allmusic.com (and a no-result plain Google + Google Book search) then that basically suggests what? A prod? An AFD? A note on article or Talk page? [Sorry to be asking such basic question but the all-music only article seems to be a not unique phenomenon]. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally would have no problem with every official release by a notable artist being covered (either in its own article or in a detailed section of a discography). There is an inevitable bias towards more recent works and those released in Anglophone countries, which is exacerbated by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but unfortunately that's the way Wikipedia works. I would certainly consider a PROD to be completely inappropriate for a topic which has an AllMusic review: PROD is intended for articles nobody (except maybe their authors) is likely to miss or search for, which is unlikely to be the case when the subject has gained sufficient recognition to be reviewed on AllMusic. AfD imposes a tight deadline for finding additional sources, so if there's a reasonably good chance other Reliable Sources do exist, tagging the article and/or using the talk page would give editors a sporting chance to find them before any direct threats of deletion. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

CMJ and Billboard will have no coverage of many notable albums. Most of the world is outside of North America and we are not only interested in those albums covered in one part of the world. --Michig (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Albums are sub-topics

I find it hard to understand the logic of Albums being seen as stand-alone topics, to be judged on their own for notability. By their very nature, they are sub-articles/sub-topics. A notable album always means a notable artist (if their the sole/principal artist of an original album). So, they're not independent. A notable artist should mean the original albums are worthy of inclusion, if they have sufficient reliably sourced content. It simply makes sense to break up larger articles, into sub-articles in many cases. This is more of a formatting/organizing issue, not one of notability. For a famous artist, discussing a minor album may not warrant much space in the main article, which might be extremely lengthy already, but there may be sufficient content to make a decent sub-article. It's utterly non-sensical that we would delete a well sourced article for "notability" issues, but the exact same content, if it had been entered into the artist bio would be allowed (and simply subject to normal editing). An AFD for an original album of a clearly notable artist is pure waste. There's often grounds for a merge/redirect, but that's different than deletion for non-notability. As an analogy, it would be silly to delete Discography of Artist X as non-notable if Artist X is notable. It might make sense to not have the spin-off, but that's not a notability issue. --Rob (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with any of that. Unfortunately a lot of editors seem unable to look at the bigger picture and insist on just looking at the sources in individual articles and can't see beyond WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The notability of an album is not inherited from the artist. If there is not significant coverage in reliable sources of the album in question, then it is not notable enough for its own stand-alone article. Examples of this would be early EPs/albums of acts that would later become notable. Just because they became popular in 2009 does not mean the self-released EPs or albums from 2002 and 2004 are immediately notable enough for their own articles. If the significant coverage exists, enough to pass WP:NALBUMS, then the article should be kept no question about it. STATic message me! 07:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to binary computers about this (all or none get standalone articles). "All other things being equal" being authored by a notable artist should bump some albums over the line. Also, if "no inherentence" was an absolute policy used as you suggest, we need a radical rewrite of notability for artists. We consider the notability of the artist label, notability of charts their on, notability of awards they have won, and notability of shows/movies they've appeared on in measuring the artist. The idea is there are certain indications of notability, that suggest more coverage is likely to exist, even if there's only a basic sourced stub initially. Regardless, we always require sources. But, for example, if you're signed to a major label, we're not as demanding for lots of sources up front as if your burning CD's on your PC. By the same token, if the artist is well established, we should be more accommodating for their albums than would be if we're talking about a non-notable artist. Finally, there's a good reason for not using deletion with albums of notable artists, even if there shouldn't be a stand-alone album article. Redirecting (with or without merge) is always an option for notable artist albums, since the artist is the logical target (unlike albums of non-notable artists, which need to be deleted in most cases). --Rob (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to side with Static on this one. Notability isn't inherited. It pretty much works that way with other media and it's creators as well - video games, books, film, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a hard one but I generally have to feel inclined to also support the notation that notability is not inherent and if there isn't enough coverage to meet GNG for the sub article, then it's receiving undue weight in the first place and shouldn't be included in this encyclopedia. Discography articles are challenging to begin with since we're essentially talking about the need to get lists and tables off the main article. Most often than not, discography articles where the notability is being challenge are usually articles that consist of mostly stuff you'd find on the back of a CD case. For me it brings up the question that while that information is handy, do we really need it in terms of an encyclopedia, especially if there's no coverage on it? Does Wikipedia really need to be the place to list al the tracks of an album that can't even meet SIGCOV? I'm not really sure but I don't think sub articles can be void of any notability requirement. Mkdw^talk 21:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If a notable artist such as Celine Dion or Lenny Kravitz was to release an album, it would not automatically inherit notability from the artist. There would have to be reliably sourced coverage about the album specifically for it to be notable. If there is little beyond a track listing and maybe details about the release of one single and maybe a chart then in all honest the article doesn't pass WP:GNG let alone WP:NALBUMS. Every article has to have its own notability. Whilst I agree some artist's pages are becoming very long, moving content which is not suitable for its own page (because alone such information is notable or warranting of a full page) is not the way to go. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't about albums that will automatically achieve notability by being released, the issue is about artists such as Bruce Cockburn who is imminently notable, but not every release is notable. Each album should have to fight for its own notability. And there are albums released before achieving prominence such as Katy Hudson (album), an album released by Katy Perry, which has seen unnecessary expansion, by fans, for a barely notable album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Walter, Katy Hudson sometimes comes off as "barely notable" due to its commercial failure and how it is often overlooked in reports on Katy Perry's material. There are reviews of it giving significant coverage such as AllMusic and Christianity Today. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that deleted stand-alone album articles are often simply deleted, without preserving the information in the artist's discography article. Guidelines based on consensus suggest that articles on albums which are not independently notable should be merged, yet we often see the article simply deleted and the information lost - a situation which is not supported by consensus, and to the best of my knowledge never has been. There's no good reason why a discography should not contain a section on each release which doesn't have its own article (with links to any that do) as well as the usual tables of releases. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A New Editor Needs Some Help

A new editor (a little rough around the edges) is trying to expand an existing music related merged article with the eventual object of restoring an article that was merged and redirected per an AfD. The IP editor in question is currently working off a block for disruptive editing related to disagreements over the AfD/merger but he seems eager to figure out how to do this correctly. If there is anyone who would like to offer some guidance and help to a new editor who got off on the wrong foot, such would be appreciated. You can communicate with him on his talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Record Label section request

Can someone add a record label notability guidance section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This would be a good idea, we should have a distinct notability criteria for record labels, rather then just pointing to the general WP:COMPANY. STATic message me! 21:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com

Would the website famousbirthdays.com be considered as a reliable source? I am trying to find the birthday of a singer/guitarist called Ben Bruce of metal band Asking Alexandria but so far the only website telling me his actual year of birth is this one: [1]

If not then I'll have to keep on digging, he does not need his own article yet but he intends to do a solo project, and is head of a record label as well, so when more info about him is out I'll get it but his age is somewhat missing. SilentDan297 talk 19:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A person's age or birth date, while certainly helpful information for us to provide if we can source it properly, is by no means critical information that we have to include in our articles. I don't see how famousbirthdays.com could count as a reliable source, if there's no way for us to determine where they got their information from — one important feature of reliable sources is their factcheckability (even RS sometimes get stuff wrong too, so we need to at least have the ability to figure out where they got their information from), but that site doesn't appear to offer us any way to verify where their information is coming from. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The relevant consensus at RSN is that famousbirthdays is not a reliable source for personal information such as birthdays. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

IMVDb notable or not?

IMVDb (Internet Music Video Database) is a database full of information regarding music videos such as directors and production information, which is useful when it comes to explaining who made the music videos on articles regarding that song and also on discography pages, and while it does have a similar format to IMDb, whether it is reliable or not to me is uncertain, does anyone know If I can indeed use this as a means of reliable information or not? Thank you. SilentDan297 talk 15:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

IMDb and IMVDb are essentially a Wikipedia of their own since they're user-generated, and are thus not deemed reliable by Wikipedia's standards. See WP:RS/IMDB and WP:USERGENERATED. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Caves of Glass notable?

I'm unsure about this bands notability factor? (See, Caves of Glass)AdditionSubtraction (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources beyond the ArtRocker review, and they don't appear to meet any other criterion of WP:BAND. Probably worth taking to AfD. --Michig (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Remixes

I would like to know what the consensus is on the notability of remixes of songs and how much coverage they should receive in articles about the original song. For example, Cedric Gervais' remixes of "Young and Beautiful" and "Summertime Sadness" by Lana Del Rey, and "Adore You" by Miley Cyrus have their own section in these articles and I am wondering whether this is necessary or if a mention of the remix' background and commercial (and maybe critical) success in the article would be enough. Also, should all released remixes be listed in the track listing section as they currently are in the article for "Summertime Sadness? I just think that these articles should cover the work of art as the artist intended it. I think especially the article for "Summertime Sadness" gives the Cedric Gervais remix undue weight. Even though the remix charted higher, it is not the original song which the article is actually about. Littlecarmen (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If they're in the article about the single, that's good. (see WP:NSONGS)

If it's in a section dedicated to the remixes, that's good.

If it's brief mentions, that's good. (see WP:UNDUE)

If it's referenced, that's good. (see WP:V and WP:RS)

If the remix charted in regards to sales or for radio airplay, this should be discussed.

If it takes-up too much space, isn't referenced, and is generally unencyclopedic, I would remove or reduce the material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Why so much emphasis on notability?

I would simply like to bring up a discussion about why there is so much emphasis on the need for musicians, artists, bands, and albums to have a certain amount of notability in order to have articles? Throughout the years, I have used Wikipedia as a valuable source in researching about various bands and their music that I would not have otherwise discovered had the information not been here, notable or not. It seems to me to kind of defeat the purpose if we're all the sudden only interested in music that's 'important enough' only. Why limit what could be valuable information for people? Some information is better than none. Jair Crawford (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Any article needs to satisfy the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and that will be difficult for artists that received little or no coverage. In the absence of sources that can at least be used to verify content we don't have the basis for an article. Some editors do seem a bit blinkered when it comes to notability concerns and too focussed on whether subjects merit standalone articles rather than looking at the value of the content, but it all comes down to consensus regarding what is appropriate and manageable. --Michig (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So it is more of an issue of lack of sources? One reason I'm bringing this up is, I've been interested in finding information about old and rare albums from otherwise popular artists, and in many cases, Wikipedia has the most information on the web about certain albums in that category. But some of them are being PRODed due to lack of notability. The sources issue is a problem because due to the nature of said albums being old and rare, most of the sources on any articles would likely be more personal sources, rather than published articles. However that does not necessarily make the information inaccurate. I just think it would be a shame if a lot of this valuable information got erased because of lack of notability. Jair Crawford (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I understand that there are very good reasons why biographical articles need to be well sourced, but when the artist's notability is well established, I don't see any compelling reason to remove articles about their individual albums or whatever. Unlike BLPs, album articles are rarely problematic, and I've never heard of any reader who wasn't a regular editor having a problem with their inclusion (and tbh I don't really understand why so many editors do). Many pre-internet topics are judged non-notable just because relevant sources are hard to find, though they might have received at least as much coverage in their time as more recent topics whose notability can be demonstrated with online sourcing. If editors insist that obscure releases do not warrant separate articles, merging the information into existing articles would be a far more satisfactory and consensus-based solution than deleting it. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Michig, albums that are not independently notable, but that are created by artists who are, present a particular problem, and the "value of the content" is the issue. In such cases, the normal course of action would be to delete the album article but also to merge any appropriate, worthwhile material to the artist article. Opinions vary as to how much material is appropriate, of course. For myself (and I take it, Jair and Mild), for any original studio album, e.g., I would want details such as a full track listing, a description of the contributions by other musicians, a picture of the cover, and a summary of the genesis of and the critical and popular reception of the album. However, if all such material is available, it can be ungainly to shove it into the artist article. In such cases, I think the reader is best-served if we break out the material into a separate page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Album information is very useful. It would be a shame to see a lot of valuable information be erased because the albums were not notable enough and the information could not be properly merged into the artist article. Jair Crawford (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely Hobbes, I was explaining the status quo rather than what should be happening. That's all valid encyclopedic content and is generally easily verifiable for albums by notable artists, but a lot of editors will ignore all that if there's a lack of evidence of significant coverage and try to get it deleted. Although the current situation is that articles like this often don't survive without evidence of passing WP:GNG (one of the most misguided inventions that this project has come up with), that's not something that I think is a good thing. If people could put guidelines to one side and only try to delete these articles if the encyclopedia would be improved without them (rarely the case) or if WP:V cannot be satisfied (also rare), we would be in a much better position. A lot of decent album articles (as in most areas if you look what was here 10 years ago) started out with minimal content and no sources. I have argued in the past that we should include more detailed discographies (including tracklistings) in artist articles, which would make album articles that contain only a tracklisting and an infobox redundant. This would give us an easy solution to a whole load of articles that are never going to get beyond that state, but there wasn't consensus.--Michig (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. I guess the question is, how can we bring this issue to the attention of the community? I am very new to editing, but I'd be happy to do what I can to help with this issue. I think this is something that needs to be re-examined. Jair Crawford (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Notability is not inherited. By extension, if we were talking about a company rather than a band, then every product made by a company would be considered notable by the standard being suggested. If we were discussing a person, then their progeny would be notable using this standard. If we were discussing an actor, then every every piece they performed in would be considered notable whether it's student film, small-stage performance or voice-over for a commercial. This reductio ad absurdum is necessary to show how silly this is. Not every album by every artist or band is notable. There are ways to incorporate the track listing in discography articles or artist articles that doesn't violate WP:N. The only change we need is to clarify what level of notability is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, believe it or not, I wouldn't mind if we had more in depth information about more obscure products or films and other things that are made by otherwise notable people, companies, etc. I like to read Wikipedia to discover things. That's what an encyclopedia is for. Information on subjects. If we become so limiting in the information provided due to lack of notability, then we limit the amount of knowledge that can be discovered. I'm not saying we should treat Wikipedia like a directory or anything like that, just that maybe the current notability guidelines seem a little too tight. Jair Crawford (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that coming from you. Did you know that Hillsong, the collective of musicians that this started over, recorded an album of metal worship? There. Now you've read some in-depth information at the level of the articles I've nominated for deletion. It's as well-referenced as those albums as well. All that's missing is the track names which I won't take the time to make-up. Now, what I'm stating is that what I wrote is unreferenced and is just as valid as the other unreferenced information on the bands. We can't allow unreferenced material to be included if it could be challenged. That's a pillar. From that, we have guidelines that determine what constitutes a notable band, song and album. It all goes back to references. If you want to read about Hillsong and other bands, there are lots of blogs and discussion groups where you can share unreferenced information. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. That I can understand and agree with. However those articles were referenced. That's why I said that the current notability guidelines seem a little too tight. Also I want to make sure I'm being clear in that I am in no way bringing this up for any personal reasons from those articles that you PRODed. I honestly did not know that the notability guidelines were so tight on Wikipedia until I noticed that those articles had been PRODed and that led me to having this discussion. So if anything, I should thank you for bringing the guidelines to my attention. I am in no way trying to discredit your work and edits. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here, but almost all of those albums nominated for deletion are not entirely unreferenced. They are listed at AllMusic or another database, and reviewed by Cross Rhythms. I'm neutral right now on whether that should be enough for an album to stay, but right now guidelines say that's not enough. Now, guidelines can be stretched, or sometimes ignored, but we need a good reason to do so. They can also be changed. But all that aside, I agree with Walter that there has to be something out there to make it notable, and to avoid conflicts of interest, some of that information has to come from a source independent of the subject. Now, Jair Crawford, you could do something like an interview with John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout or Tony Cummings of Cross Rhythms regarding such and such album, and have it published in a way that can be confirmed by others, and then you have a good case to present (I for one think things like oral histories and expert testimonies should be equally allowable as written and video sources). But there has to be some documentation. If you want to argue that one review and some scattered database mentions are enough, then go ahead.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Essentially I'm trying to raise a point that I believe, using this particular case as an example, that the allmusic and Cross Rhythms references should be enough notability for those articles to remain. Those articles have sources. And I don't think that requiring more than that does much more than limit the information available on Wikipedia. That's just my opinion though. I still think it's worthy of discussion, however. If anyone else agrees that the notability guidelines are currently a bit tight, then I figured, why not discuss the possibility of loosening them up? Jair Crawford (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The AllMusic entries are not references, they're track listings. An AllMusic reference needs to contain a review from a staff reviewer. they're actually too loose and need to be tightened and clarified. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realize that about AllMusic. But I'll still stand on my opinion on the Cross Rhythms references. As for the notability guidelines, maybe tight isn't the best word. When I said the guidelines were too tight, I mean they were too strict. More clarity could actually be a good thing. I agree with you there. But I think requiring three to four external reviews is too much. I think if it gets at least one external review, that should be enough. Again, that's just my opinion. But I wanted to bring up the point to see if anyone else agrees. Jair Crawford (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. Firstly, are details of an album released by a notable artist appropriate content? Secondly, at what point is a standalone article justified for an album? I think most people would agree that the answer to the first question is yes, though with varying opinions on the amount of content; It then comes down to what verifiable encyclopedic information there is and whether that is most appropriately presented in a standalone article, the article about the artist, or in a separate discography article. If we can only find one review, it may be more appropriate to summarize that in the article on the artist. We get far too many articles at PROD or AfD because firstly the article creator has often not considered the appropriateness of creating a standalone article, and secondly because the nominator often hasn't considered any possibilities other than (i) standalone article or (ii) outright deletion. --Michig (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their input in the matter. Any more input is more than welcome. I've also decided to bring this subject up in the policies section of the village pump. Jair Crawford (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, after all this discussion, and not an awful lot of specifics about what really is good enough to assure an editor that others will agree on whether an album is notable, I am really confused why chart performance has not come up in this discussion. I added a new section below about chart performance and certification, and a somewhat embarrassing rant about how impossible it seems to find good sources that MUST exist but are impossible to find because of the nature of search engines and the info glut everywhere. I just started my first music article, and I thought notability was a no-brainer based on chart performance, but now I can't tell what is required, and it occurs to me that there is absolutely no way for someone like me to put in the hours necessary to write a good article with any sort of assurance it won't be capriciously deleted by someone else with a different understanding of the notability requirements. That is a MAJOR disincentive for putting work into WP articles, knowing they might disappear, and I have no way of predicting it before it happens. Why should I bother putting in all that effort? Dcs002 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is a very simple answer to your conundrum: make sure that the subject of your article meets the GNG. If your subject doesn't meet the GNG, the obvious conclusion (regardless of the shifting sands of WP:MUSIC, which guideline will hopefully continue to tighten up over time) is that your subject isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Ravenswing 14:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia resources to help establish notability (or to buy time to do so)

If you are starting a music article and you are concerned about having that article deleted before notability has been fully established, here are a few resources provided by Wikipedia and your fellow Wikipedians to help you find sources and to prevent or delay deletions until you or another editor can finish the job:

1) WP:ALBUM/SOURCES - (To find sources)

This is a list of print and online publications that provide album information and reviews. Many print publications maintain online archives, though several of those require paid subscriptions to gain access.

2) List of record charts - (To find sources)

This is a list of record charts from around the world. While performance on record charts does not establish notability by itself, performance on one or more of these charts can enhance a case for notability (e.g., establish an international pattern of album sales as opposed to regional popularity). Note that not all charts are available online or in English.

3) List of music recording certifications - (To find sources)

Albums and other recorded media can be certified as Silver, Gold, Platinum, or Diamond, depending on the country in which the certification is awarded. This page lists the official certifying organizations from many countries and the levels of certification they award for albums, singles, music downloads, videos, and even ringtones. As with record charts, certification does not by itself necessarily establish notability, but it will strengthen the case. Note again that not all certifying organizations have an online presence, and if they do it might not be in English.

4) WP:DRAFTS - (To prevent deletion)

Editors can create new articles as drafts, which are not required to establish notability or meet most other WP rules or guidelines, as they are considered works in progress. (Exceptions include copyright infringements, vandalism, WP:BLP violations, or blatant advertising or promotion, which will be speedily deleted.) Otherwise, draft articles are available for editors (all editors, not just the draft's creator) to work on until they are satisfactory for publication as a regular article. Note that any editor may change a draft article to a regular published article. If you wish to maintain control over the draft until you decide to release it for publication, an alternative is to keep the draft in your user sandbox or elsewhere in your talk space. Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process. Moving a published article to draft status can also be an alternative to outright deletion.

5) WP:SIGNIF - (To delay deletion by preventing speedy deletion)

Following the criteria on this page will not allow an article to stand if it is not notable, but it provides a way to prevent speedy deletion. Criterion A9 under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states that "An article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met)" is subject to speedy deletion. Including a credible statement about why the recording is significant (a lower standard than notability) under the criteria listed in WP:SIGNIF will prevent speedy deletion. This can buy editors time to locate and cite additional sources, add needed content to the article, or make the article into a draft. Remember, WP:NMG states that an album does not need to be made by a notable artist to merit its own article, but a non-notable artist plus no credible statement of significance means eligibility for speedy deletion.

6) WP:PROJDIR/MUS - (To find people who might be able to help establish notability, or help with the article in other ways)

This is a directory of WikiProjects and task forces that deal with music. Aside from the main music WikiProject, there are others dedicated to numerous genres, music theory, regional music, individual musicians and ensembles, record labels, even record production.

Dcs002 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Certification or chart success? A clear way to establish notability is needed.

I wrote up a page for Planet P Project's 1984 release Pink World, and I assumed notability based on it having made Billboard's 200 album chart (only made it to #121, but was on the chart for 14 weeks) and one song hitting #25 on Billboard's Mainstream Rock chart. I want to know if chart position or certification as gold or better, somewhere, maybe multiple somewheres, is enough? (I think it should be - at some threshold level.)

My problem is I can't find reviews and other sources to establish notability through all of the clutter in my Google searches, and I don't know where to look really. I keep getting music retailer customer reviews instead of journalistic reviews. (This is only the 2nd article I have started, and the only music article.) I don't know where to look for info like the number of units sold either. (Google is useless for that. It just returns a list of a thousand music retailers and a few male enhancement products.) Apparently labels don't like to make that info obvious for future sales reasons, and the charting organizations all published expensive paper journals in the 80s, and they want their reprint revenue. Two of the songs on the album had (amazing) videos on MTV and USA Network's Night Flight in 1984 (I have a VHS recording of them), but I can't find a verifiable source for that either, and I don't know where to look. (Search engines like Google ignore Boolean searches nowadays and give you all the garbage anyway. And you can guess what kind of website pinkworld.com is.)

I am not specifically concerned about the notability of Pink World, but shouldn't a recording that hit the Billboard charts be therefore notable? I think we need a clearer way to establish or refute notability that people like me can navigate, and the major charts seem like a no-brainer, but there's no mention of them on this page or on the WP album project pages that I looked at. The rest of the options for establishing notability are so maddening to locate. I am not a regular contributor to WP music articles, but I think that someone like me should have a way to do this, at least to the extent that I know it won't be deleted because someone else hasn't heard of the album and I couldn't find enough sources for what should be obvious based on chart performance. If AllMusic didn't have that review, I might have spent hours working on sourcing this article and only have a single independent source, Billboard (the most authoritative source in the US, maybe the world?), to tell me it's notable. I wouldn't have "multiple sources" that must be out there but I couldn't locate myself. Dcs002 (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, the clear way to establish notability is for the subject to meet the GNG. Of course a regular Google search will turn up garbage, which is why at the very least you need to start with a Google News or Highbeam search. Merely making the Billboard charts isn't good enough, since ALL subordinate notability criteria (WP:MUSIC included) work from the assumption that a subject that meets the criteria would likewise meet the GNG, and it's unlikely that the album that just broke #97th on the chart's getting a lot of press.

  If you can't find reviews from legitimate news services on an album (for example), the answer isn't that we need to come up with some metric to determine whether an album is notable or not: the answer is that the album is not notable. Ravenswing 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• The GNG says the sources must be detailed (which a page by Billboard showing only the peak position and time on the chart is not), and that multiple sources are "generally expected," not required. It does not say when an article should be nominated for deletion. The lack of readily identifiable quality sources cannot determine the degree of notability. It can only not support it. The problem is not notability, it's the ability of a person with average editorial skills to document notability reliably. This is the Free Encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia for the elite. We need to facilitate participation, not discourage it. Maybe a metric for notability isn't feasible, but a metric for not deleting an article is reasonable.

Chart position alone, at some level, would certainly ensure what you're calling the subordinate GNG criteria are available somewhere. If an album charted at #1 for the year in Billboard and #1 for the year in the UK, for example, we can all be confident that the subordinate criteria would be "meetable", though not necessarily met. This is a matter of degrees, not arbitrary binaries.

Pink World's chart performance suggests that the album may have sold several hundred thousand copies in the US alone. This album is owned (and was paid for) by more people than the entire life's output of any notable painter. (The record holder is Morris Katz with over 280,000 paintings.) That represents extremely widespread individual financial investment. An album that sells 500,000 copies will gross maybe $5-8 million USD, and that money comes from half a million people. There are airplane models that have sold fewer than 70 units, in only one country, and grossed less money than that, with the money coming from fewer than 70 people, yet they are considered notable enough to have their own articles. An album is an economic product, like an airplane, and it is a work of art, like one of Morris Katz' paintings. A painting that sells for over $5-8 million USD is gonna be notable on its own.

There are so many ways to argue that an album like this is notable. It's a matter of evidence availability, not its existence, and finding that evidence before the article gets deleted. It doesn't need "a lot of press," it needs enough press. My not finding it certainly does not mean "the answer is that the album is not notable." (I don't know if you were being facetious.) It's circular to say that notability depends on evidence for notability. Saying something is "not notable" is different than saying I haven't provided evidence for notability. I think you are confusing the two.

The GNG evidence criteria are part of a guideline that is not mandatory, only a guideline. Not meeting that guideline is NOT evidence that a subject is not notable. The onus should be on those who propose deletion to establish non-notability in some manner that others can consider before voting on the question of deletion. Saying that it doesn't meet a non-mandatory notability guideline does not establish non-notability. That type of consensus is built without necessary information and has very little bearing on whether a subject is notable. It only bears on agreement as to whether a non-mandatory guideline has been met. I don't think the GNG was intended to provide guidelines for deletion, but it seems that's how it's being used for music.

This seems to have degenerated into a race to provide evidence before an article gets deleted. I am better at writing than sourcing. If I put my bit out there with some minimal amount of evidence that the album is very notable, even if it's not sufficient to meet GNG criteria, there should be no need to delete it before someone eventually fills in the blanks. Tag it as needing additional sources and leave it alone.Dcs002 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. I could not have said it better. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this. If an article is nominated for an AfD, all that needs to happen is sources need to be supplied at the AfD, not in the article, to show that the subject is notable. Without those sources, the subject is clearly not notable.

It's also a lot easier to recreate an article, with sufficient sources, after it's failed an AfD than it is to try to get an article deleted again if it's passed an AfD.

The idea that one should prove the "non-notablity" of a subject is laughable as well. Wikipedia is a place for notable subjects and it's up to those who create articles to show that subjects are notable, and up to other editors to support that if it truly is. The bar is already low enough for inclusion that it's wrong to change the impetus to nominators. They should already go through WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue though is, like Dcs002 mentioned, it seems like a race to find evidence before deletion. Wouldn't it be easier to have more time to look for evidence with the article still up rather than have to race against the clock on an AfD? I do, however, agree with your point that good effort should be done to find notable sources from the beginning when creating the article.Jair Crawford (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence should be provided when the article is created.

AfDs are not like speedy deletes where you have only a few hours to find sources, AfDs usually last a week and I've seen some last as long as a month. All you have to do is state that you would like some time to look for additional sources and most closing admins will grant that. This happened recently where I nominated about thirty articles that were all created by the same editor and all lacked sources. Many were tagged for over a year. It was my PRODs and later AfDs that finally uncovered sources for about half of them. The AfDs for a few went on for three weeks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

True. Although it depends on the closing admin. They can be pretty fast sometimes. Or so it seems. Then again I'm very new to this. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Many, many articles are tagged as lacking any references at all, and they have been allowed to remain for a great deal of time, over a year in many cases that I have seen in WP. Why is it that album articles are deleted within one to three weeks? I am not always here to defend the case for notability or ask for more time to find the evidence. I might not be editing or discussing articles here for a month at a time. During that time, an article that I spent a lot of effort to start, and which I believed was notable (and heard no suggestion to the contrary) last time I was here, could be nominated for deletion, then deleted, and the one person who has the most interest in refuting the case for deletion might not be involved in the discussion. Articles have to start somewhere, and the person who started the article might just have written an article about a notable topic but not sourced it. Again, why are you in such a hurry to delete articles? Tag them and let them sit for a while. If an article is tagged as needing sources, the people reading it will know that it has the weakness of not being demonstrated as notable or reliable YET, and therefore might have reliability issues, but deleting an article robs the WP community of the opportunity to help establish its notability. WP does not exist to provide a depository for non-notable material, but Walter, you are confusing notability for evidence of notability when you say, "Without those sources, the subject is clearly not notable," and you are advocating deletion instead of offering to help fix things yourself. Sorry, but I think that, by doing so, you are advocating a serious loss and degeneration of the power of WP to 1) provide information on topics people are interested in, and 2) allow a broad spectrum of people to participate in the development of such articles. Again, why the hurry? Allow articles a chance to get off the ground. Dcs002 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We should fix the problem of articles being unreferenced for years too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, notability guidelines should only ever be used as a rule of thumb, so we should expect to have to look at each case individually rather than looking to guidelines to give a black and white answer. I know some editors see subject-specific notability guidelines as merely indications that WP:GNG can be satisfied but that's just an opinion, and one that I don't share. Both the GNG and the SNGs are means to an end, that end being to determine whether a subject has encyclopedic relevance. Too many people see GNG as an end in itself in my view. That aside, for albums by notable artists, a key criterion for whether a separate article is merited (whether or not it's 'notable') is the amount of verifiable encyclopedic content about the album (i.e. coming from reliable sources), and whether that could be summarised in an article on the artist or their discography. I tried searching for this album on Highbeam and drew a blank. Google News is unlikely to find much since they abandoned their archive search, and Google Newspapers didn't have anything either, so I think you may need to find some print sources. There are a couple of books that come up in a Google Books search that may be worth checking out: [2], [3]. --Michig (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Alas, you have only one voice, and so do I. I have seen what some people call "consensus" that consists of a lack of objection over a one week period, then deleting large amounts of content or reverting some major change. Not everyone understands that consensus is not the same thing as a majority opinion, and it's certainly not a mere lack of objection. That really concerns me. I have only started two articles, and that takes so much effort, and knowing all that work could be deleted by that kind of process, or by a misunderstanding of the purpose of the GNG - that really, really makes me not want to invest the effort. (I just happen to be passionate about Pink World as an album.) That's a very bad thing for WP - scaring people away from participation. I am not normally here spending hours at a time editing or discussing articles. I might not be here to participate in discussions for deletions if they can happen that fast, or if there are people so intent on eliminating everything they can because they think it is somehow improving WP (or maybe out of bitterness for having been on the receiving end once themselves - I respect that kind of hurt). Sometimes I am not here for weeks. In the meantime people who consider the GNG as representing sufficient criteria for deletion might be discussing, agreeing, and deleting something that takes an enormous amount of work to put together. That is my fear.

On a happier note, I have found one of the sources I was looking for, and it is online. I did not know this, but Billboard has its own online archive of scanned back issues at http://www.billboard.com/magazine-archive. What's more, the scans are searchable (one issue at a time) through a sort of OCR tool in the archive. So there it is, the most respected trade journal actually is accessible! For Pink World, that means I now have two professional reviews (solid footing!) and a bunch of chart data and MTV broadcast information (rotation information anyway). Still, if the guy from AllMusic hadn't written his review, then all of that information would still have come from one source, Billboard. I think it is the highest quality source for notable recorded music, and I think that should matter. There might only be one source, but if it's Billboard, and if it provides a ton of information, again I have to say there should be a holding point where an article has not met notability evidence requirements, but the evidence is of such high quality that the article should not be deleted. Again, I think it should be tagged as needing more sources and left alone. Dcs002 (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Certification (on its own) is not a good way to define notability. There are song articles that pre-date the advent of singles and albums and have never charted but pass the GNG/NSONG criteria with flying colours (Think nursery rhymes, national anthems, wartime songs etc) and there are charted songs/albums which will never pass NSONG/GNG. Generally speaking, if something charts there will be enough available sources for that song/album and thereby passing GNG/NSONG. One should also remember that these guidelines relate to article name space, not content, so there is no reason to lose content. At this point I have not seen the Pink World article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I was suggesting that certification might be usable as an inclusion criterion, not an exclusion criterion. If an album or song has been certified in more than one country, I think that should be enough to keep it, and for classical music releases, I think it is accepted already. I am not suggesting that albums or songs that have not been certified should be deemed not notable. Case in point: Lie: The Love and Terror Cult. But as for losing content, that's not quite true is it. If an album article has been well written and is full of balanced information, but the artist's page is sparse and needs help, then the two cannot be combined without losing a lot of content from the album page. What was balanced on its own becomes wildly disproportionate when combined if that is the case, and it is easier to chop up and remove content from the album than it is to expand the artist content. Saying content doesn't have to be lost because articles are being merged makes it easier to delete articles and in the end lose content. I'm not sure what name space is, but is it really so important as to force these kinds of losses? I've seen this come up before several times, and the answer is always the same when deleting and merging. Content is lost, and it seems such a waste. (Right now the Pink World article does have more content than the Planet P Project article.) Dcs002 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that WP:V demands that we base articles on the content of third-party sources. If you can't find independent third-party sources, there's no way to build a suitable article. It becomes a recitation of primary facts selected based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors, and we don't care about the opinions of Wikipedia editors.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"If you can't find independent third-party sources, there's no way to build a suitable article." If I can't find independent third-party sources? This attitude is completely contrary to the whole mission of Wikipedia! It is not up to one single individual to make an article completely acceptable to GNG, especially when GNG is NOT MANDATORY! WP is supposed to be a team effort, and you guys need to realize the priority of fixing things over deleting things because they do not meet a non-mandatory standard. Dcs002 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia at all. No one should create an article unless he has third-party reliable sources in hand when doing so and cite them as he writes. That's the only acceptable technique for creating an article.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do you suppose WP has stub class and starter class articles at all? According to your argument, starters and stubs have no place in Wikipedia. They have not met the minimum requirements before being posted, and therefore their creation has not followed "the only acceptable technique for creating an article." You are arguing that responsibility for WP content is not shared, but lain on one person alone, the person who starts the article. That is rigid, black-and-white thinking, and it is not how WP works. It never has been that way except, I now see, in this corner of WP where we discus music. Dcs002 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

For stub and starter class articles that are well-referenced. Why do you think that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a guideline? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Those tell us what is generally expected of good articles, not what should be deleted if it is absent. The only questions here are notability, acceptable ways of establishing notability in a field in which doing so is uniquely challenging (older, pre-Internet album releases), and a proposal that there are surrogate measures that will assure GNG will be met. Still, there are stub class articles all over WP that do not meet the full notability guidelines and are allowed plenty of time to develop. Again, why is this topic of music so different? No one has even attempted to justify that yet. Dcs002 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If an association football league, club, player, manager, official or stadium article is created that doesn't meet the football notability guidelines it is not only nominated for deletion, it's quickly gone. If a software article that doesn't meet notability guidelines is created and it comes to the attention of the project, it's nominated for deletion and deleted. Perhaps you're talking about the hundreds of older articles that have not been nominated for deletion. That's a valid question. I can't speak for other projects, but the real question is why aren't other articles more like the correct way of dealing with this class? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What Kww said. The language of WP:V -- which is a core content policy -- and WP:N are unequivocal. If the question you're asking is "How do we rewrite WP:MUSIC so it'll give a pass to articles I want to write about subjects which can't meet the GNG?" then that's the wrong question. Ravenswing 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want WP:MUSIC to give any articles a pass. That would be ignorant and self-centered, and that is NOT what I have been advocating. Please broaden your interpretation of what I am saying, and please stop mis-characterizing my words. I want WP:MUSIC to give articles enough time to be fixed, to meet evidence requirements for notability before deletion, and for music articles that can take a lot more time than for other subjects. Chart position and certification are my proposed means to that end. They are also my proposed way of satisfying existing guidelines because at some minimum threshold, an album that charts well or is certified gold in more than one country WILL meet notability standards, if not the non-mandatory guidelines. Dcs002 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You want WP:MUSIC to give articles enough time to be fixed? Answer: it can't; that's not what SNGs are there to do. SNGs are there to define notability, not to provide ammunition for delaying actions against the deletion of articles lacking proper sourcing.

Truth be told, you're wrong that music articles take a lot longer to source than other subjects; music gets a great deal of press in our culture, after all. The problem is that editors frequently seek -- we see it at AfD all the time -- to establish articles for musical subjects far more obscure than is the case in many other fields. No experienced editor would attempt, say, to create an article about a high school athlete, however locally celebrated, but we see articles all the time about obscure, ephemeral local bands, often backed by claims that the obscure local indie label on which they're signed is a "more important" indie label, or that the local Battle of the Bands victory is a "major" musical competition, or that the group is/was a prominent local exponent of a particular genre.

In any event, I stand by my previous statements. If you want to create articles where sourcing takes a long time to accomplish, then do the sourcing work before posting the article. If the article already exists, and it's under threat of deletion, userfy it until you have the time and energy to source it. It's really that simple. Ravenswing 01:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

SNG's are non-mandatory, and you are wrong, they do not define notability. They are guidelines to provide reasonable expectations of an article about a notable subject. If they defined notability, then perhaps their use to define articles for deletion might be justified. But they don't. On top of that, I have named two examples of SNG's that do exactly what I'm suggesting: one that allows classical music albums to be generally accepted as notable with more than one major award, and now I just found the Rolling Stone 500 Best album project, where position on that list alone is accepted as enough. There is precedent for what I am proposing here. These are surrogate measures for notability that achieve the same ends.

All this talk about indies and local acts is a red herring. I have proposed nothing of the kind. I have proposed some level of performance on a major chart, or certification in more than one country. At some level, performance on the Billboard 200 will serve at least as reliably as a position on Rolling Stone's 500 Best. There is no room on either for local acts that won the corner bar's Battle of the Bands. Do you understand the difference in magnitude here? (That's magnitude of notability.) A label has to invest tens of thousands of dollars, usually over $100,000 just to produce the album and promote it. Hundreds of thousands of people have to pay at least $10 each for a copy of it. That means high magnitude and widespread notability. Please don't argue about bar bands here.

You might also be surprised at the level of obscurity of articles in other fields. There are several articles about individual neuropeptides that maybe 5,000 people worldwide, mostly neuroscientists and grad students, are ever likely to hear about. Yet they are easy to source because scientists write everything down in journals that are very easy for the lay public to access, unlike music critics. Yes, modern releases will have plenty of reviews circulating, but the article I started was for a 1984 release. There were plenty of articles then too. Where are they now? They are not freely indexed online by the US Government. Dcs002 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This does bring up an issue regarding the accessibility of sources. How do we access information that predates the internet and is found mainly in decades-old back-issues of print magazines?--¿3family6 _contribs 02:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is also a good point. It typically takes longer to track down such sources as well, which can be difficult during an AfD debate. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the creator of the article was responsible for finding them before creating the article. There's never a rush if one does things in the right order.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

When did that one individual become the responsible party? I do not own either of the two articles I have started. This is meant to be a community project. We contribute our skills. I am better at writing than I am at sourcing. Should I never be welcome to start an article? Articles are never complete when they start out. They are stubs, or start class. Here they seem to be fair game for rapid deletion if ALL of the evidence is not cited immediately. This is NOT the way articles are handled elsewhere in WP. Why should music articles be any different? Do we really need a stub-free zone? Dcs002 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's why libraries exist. Long before the Internet was invented, libraries had decades-worth of old periodicals filed away, and in this day and age, many libraries link up in regional compacts allowing even small rural libraries to draw on big city and university collections. Just flip through the branch's Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature.

And if you can't get it done within the time frame of an AfD? So what? It's very seldom an article gets salted, and in almost every case there's no prejudice against creating it all over again if someone finds proper sourcing. Ravenswing 10:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There may be no prejudice against someone creating it all over again, but think what that implies. For someone to do that, they must first realize that they are attempting to create an article when a previous article on the same subject has already been deleted. That suggests to me that, regardless of my own opinion on the issue of notability, others have already determined the album was not notable, as was said in the comment explaining why the previous Pink World article was deleted 5 years ago. There is therefore inherent risk in such an undertaking. Second, in starting this article from scratch, I don't know how many hours of work I have now duplicated because the original article is gone.

What I keep hearing is that there is no sure way to know that a new article won't be deleted for notability. Sure, the GNG is a nice guideline, but it is not mandatory, and opinions can vary as to compliance with it. (I.e., I believe the article I just wrote complies with the GNG, but would others agree?)

Did you know that simply being on Rolling Stone's top 500 albums list is sufficient? That is what we need! Something that will tell me that my work won't be in vain. Something easy and certain. Not easy for an album to be notable, but easier to know whether it is notable. Being in Rolling Stone's 500 Best list or being a classical album that has one more than one major award - those are criteria that are not subjective (unless the definition of a major award becomes the next point to argue over). Other projects are recognizing that there are surrogate measures for notability. Why is it such a foreign concept that we do that here? Or that we even consider it here? Dcs002 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as the GNG being "mandatory" or not is concerned, if you can demonstrate some cases where an article (that didn't otherwise run afoul of ONEEVENT) had multiple, significant, solid, reliable media sources and was deleted anyway, I'd like to see the AfD record. Beyond that, your argument is very curious. You think the GNG is an undependable standard, but that SNGs -- which are subject to the GNG, and which are frequently revised, your assertion about projects claiming "surrogate measures" notwithstanding -- are permanent and reliable standards? I can only imagine that the subjects about which you want to write are ones where you've already failed to find sources which can pass the GNG, and you're hoping for a backdoor so that you don't have to try.

Sorry, no one can give you a guarantee that your article is untouchable. But you want something "easy and certain?" Write in compliance with the GNG. Don't depend on two solid sources; use more. I've been using just that method for the better part of a decade, and of the several dozen articles I've created, not one has ever been challenged. Ravenswing 07:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You have mis-characterized my own words again to the point of being offensive. Imagine what you want. Imply what you want. I would not do such things. I have edited articles here for 4-5 years and started only two! You think I want a back door for non-notable projects I have waiting in the wings? Have you even considered anything I've had to say with that kind of assumption hanging over your head?

I have been writing out of my experience in starting a new article for Pink World. That experience has been very frustrating, and I think we can do better. I think we can do a better job keeping this project in line with the open and public spirit of Wikipedia - ordinary people making something extraordinary - and with the way things are done throughout the rest of WP. Attacking my motives? Aside from the serious disincentive I have been discussing for people to even try to contribute new material to WP (a valid concern I think), you have shown the negativity that can befall a person who has suggestions (and supports them) for improving things. Maybe my suggestions aren't the greatest in the end, but I don't deserve to be treated like this. Please assume my best intention. If you can't, please walk away. Dcs002 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, well, but what do you expect? You're quite resistant to the GNG standard, and unfortunately, that is the Wikipedia standard for notability. It's not remotely hard to write open and public articles, just the same way it's done all over Wikipedia: write articles that meet the GNG. If your article doesn't qualify, that doesn't mean that the guidelines are wrong, it doesn't mean that people are being nasty or impugning sinister motives to you, it doesn't mean that the haters don't want new material to be posted, and it doesn't mean that the rules lawyers are stifling freedom of expression and the open, public spirit of the encyclopedia. It means that your subject isn't notable enough to qualify. Ravenswing 09:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

See the section below. That information would have been invaluable to me when I started the Pink World page, and it would have answered most of my concerns in this section. Not the answers I wanted in many cases, but options that exist within WP to keep what I feared from happening. Dcs002 (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was a good time to see what the instructions were when starting a new article. This is above where you are going to edit.

• Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article.
• You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox.
• To use a wizard to create an article, see the Article wizard.
• When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.
• You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/XXXX. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.

I understand the frustration of seeing something deleted which you have curated (I've been there, too!), But the basics are there for anybody who wants to read them. Whether this can be added to, or there is not enough guidance at WP:Yourfirstarticle is a different discussion.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Richhoncho. I did everything on that list except the last item. Given that I am better at writing than I am at sourcing, maybe I should have looked for cooperation from the start rather than spending hours on my own digging through the rubbish heaps of the search engines. I thought that what I had was enough to start out with though. And it was, technically. But I came here and wrote about the possibility that after all that work, an article about something that was clearly notable IMO might be deleted anyway. I have now learned a number of ways of preventing that now, as well as numerous places to find sources, but what about the next person?

One point about those instructions though: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." This is not the same as establishing notability first, or providing sufficient references to establish notability before publishing. It means, IMO, give other editors something to go on, some evidence I didn't just make the whole thing up, evidence that the subject covered is reality-based and likely notable. I haven't argued in favor of posting unsourced stubs. I only said that they are out there and not deleted with the rapidity or treated with the rigidity that music articles seem to be. I have advocated against the deletion of poorly sourced articles if the subject appears (but is not proven) to be notable, if certain minimums exist.

At some point we need to work cooperatively and help to build weak articles before trying to delete them. We need to look at an inadequately sourced article and think of whether we can help make it better - as our first thought. Instead, it seems a lot of people (or maybe a few, very vocal people) look at an inadequately sourced article and think "this doesn't meet notability guidelines as it stands; therefore, it should be deleted, or it should never have been created." Someone who does not have the time or energy to help with an article should not then have the time or energy to delete it, unless it clearly merits speedy deletion. We need to build on each other's work, not tear it down for being insufficient in its current form. That attitude really wound me up in this discussion. Then the attack on my motives really hurt. Is it so hard to accept that someone's hard work is for a good cause, and that their motives are sincere? WP guidelines are not etched in stone, and the reaction to the very suggestion that we revise them baffled me, but it makes sense now in light of the assumption that I wanted a back door for my nonexistent pet projects.

BTW, only 18% of the 500 Greatest Albums project goal is complete. There are stubs on that list - articles with only the album's rankings to establish notability. That might be a good place to start fixing articles instead of deleting them. Dcs002 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Wardman

Having an issue here - editor has twice now nominated another article I created for deletion, and when I contested again, dug through the other articles I created, including Chris Wardman, and AFD'd this one too. Seems to me that Wardman meets notability requirements for WP:MUSBIO, at least numbers 1,4,6 (as member of Blue Peter and Breeding Ground per "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles") and 3, as a producer, for McLaren Furnace Room which went Gold in Canada. I note that yes, this policy seems to be for musicians and not producers, but I also can't locate a policy for producers, and since he is both, it would seem to apply. Anyone who can weigh in on that discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

On the presumption of notability and SNG criteria

I invite interested parties to comment at WT:N#The application of the "presumption" of notability. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding notability of scene specific indie music

I'm currently working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Entitiy, which has been proposed for deletion, though i have added substantial more since then. However, since the entire goa/psytrance/progressive music scene can be considered "underground", with no awards, discussions take place mostly in through forums or in magazines which only circulate in the scene/parties, i wonder about general notability of this particular music genre. The artist discussed here, and as mentioned briefly in the article is booked on the major parties (hence in the scene he is considered a star), he is at the top labels of said scene and has published substantially.

However, here at Wikipedia i have the impression that at least some editors judge to fast, and my guess is without any knowledge about the scene and or artist. I looked at the requirements, and guess this article could met maybe, but i conclude that it is not easy to find reviews, let alone any mention in the mainstream media, which normally entirely ignores this genre. Are there any hints how i could further improve the article and how should i approach future, similar artist page creations? Input would be very welcome, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The best advice that I can give you is to make sure that you find coverage in reliable independent sources before creating articles. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy requires that content can be verified by referring to reliable sources. If such sources cannot be found for any reason (including artists being too underground to receive coverage) then the article simply should not be created. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about the artist per se, rather this entire genre. If you look at all the genre specific WP articles, most have been tagged heavily in regards to RS (because mainstream media is ignore it), even the genre main articles (Psytrance or Goa or from the main artists Infected Mushroom). The entire music simply doesn't conform by typical standards, and evolves around music festivals instead. The genre is not new and the many artists, which are noteworthy can be identified via the main labels, festival bookings or from indicators such as amount of released songs on the major music portals. Thus, citinings via official publications by music festival organizations should be considered by the judging editors as per RS, since they establish notability. However, often these festival publications, change on a year per year basis, thus i suggest to accept official festival line-ups as RS in regards to the notability. (If this isn't already done) prokaryotes (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Referencing isn't optional. If coverage in reliable sources for these subjects is rare, coverage here will be comparatively rare. It's the same reason we don't have articles about most bowling leagues—we've no material to write such an article with. Once good quality sources start covering such bands more frequently, we'll have something to base the articles on, but we'll follow the sources, not jump ahead by lowering standards in a given area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Also note that virtually every genre of music has sources that cover it, and as long as these meet WP:RS they are just as valid as mainstream sources. The Encyclopedia of Dance Music for example (derived from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music) gives coverage to many artists in this area, but was published some time ago, and there are other books such as Pascal Querner's Goa: 20 Years of Psychedelic Trance (2011). --Michig (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)