Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

TV Talent Shows

What about contestants on TV musical talent shows like [name of country] Idol? Here's an example I came across today: Malachi Cush. --Lee Hunter 14:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I would think that winning such a competition, if carried on nationwide television or covered in national news media other than just reprints of press releases, would be sufficient to justify inclusion. Unlike some fan editors, I don't think that just being a contestant on such a show qualifies; at most that would be supporting evidence that would require other evidence of affecting the public. I don't think that a single review in a magazine (such as ones I've written about local bands) qualifies, either, unless it's a featured article in Rolling Stone or the like. Barno 18:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia guidelines

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Minor_characters. Perhaps we can use this as a guideline to our guideline, so to speak, especially because this seems to be a relatively recent consensus. Soundguy99 14:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notable artists and groups?

• Les Joyaux De La Princesse
• Cello rock

Intro "disclaimer"

I, personally, would like to see something in the introduction that says something like "A comprehensive, well-written, verifiable and referenced article on any music-related subject trumps considerations of notability." I realize that this may seem to "defeat" the purpose of notability guidelines, but as a practical matter, I think it's highly likely that such articles can only be written about "notable" subjects. Plus, hopefully it will encourage editors to actually write articles, instead of "writing" articles by providing a link to a website. Thoughts? Comments? Soundguy99 15:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strong disagree. You're suggesting overriding one of the core principles of Wikipedia. If this were a Musicpedia I would support your proposal, but Rossami's argument above is applicable. Barno 18:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible notability compromise

I've been seeing a lot of music-notability disputes lately (and no, I'm not in a band myself, or trying to push a band on y'all), so I set up an experimental List of small-time bands page as a middle way between deletion and inclusion. A {Small-time band} tag can be added to an article that you feel is unsuitable for inclusion according to the regular guidelines, but which has achieved local renown. I threw up "The Minimum Requirements" as an example on that list, because that's one of the notability disputes (discussions) that I've witnessed recently, but it's just there as an example and can be taken off.

So much for that, huh.

Unreleased, unfinished, or scheduled albums

Unless they become notorious for some reason (being supressed, being especially good), are albums that haven't been released yet ever notable? I just nominated a very non-notable scheduled album for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Vheissu. But even if it'd had been a major band, could it be notable before it is even released? (I suppose if a huge publicity campaign or a concert tour was tied to it then it might be different). If this is an issue for all bands then maybe we should add a line to the page about the notability of unreleased albums. Any ideas? -Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:55 (UTC)

Several people have argued for different versions of a "no futures" rule - that the bar for any future event should be very high. The idea has never really gotten traction before but I think it would be a terrific idea. It would solve many of the problems with the inherent lack of verifiable information. And, as several people have pointed out, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We have no need to "scoop" anyone. Wikipedia is not harmed by waiting a few months or even years until there truly is enough information to justify a proper article. Rossami (talk) 6 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

I am absolutely opposed to "no futures rules" as they are always abused. An unreleased work or music is notable if either the individual is otherwise notable (id est, Elgar's 3rd symphony was notable because Elgar already was) or if there has been verifiable and notable coverage of the unreleased work. Upcoming projects are often the subject of major articles, for some because of bickering and cost over-runs. If the major press sees fit to write about it, then it should be included, released or not. Stirling Newberry 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It depends, if Michael Jackson had a release date for his new album along with music to actually hear, i am sure that would deserve a page. It depends on the artist, the album, and the information that one can gather from album. Parys

Guideline

I was bold and put the {{Guideline}} template on the page since many editors treat this as a guideline. Jtkiefer July 8, 2005 01:09 (UTC)

Does verifiability not subsume this guideline?

What does this guideline add that is not covered by simply insisting on verifiability? The justifications I've read above mention the benefits of being able to verify facts on obscure groups. Why not just cut to the chase and insist on verifiability and nothing else? I'm dubious about the value of yet another guideline. Lupin 13:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly the point - to provide some guidance on what standard of verifiability is acceptable. It provides standards that help to politely weed out the unverifiable garage bands. In theory, we should be able to infer all these standards from the discussion at Wikipedia:verifiability but in practice, we got into endless arguments from people who insisted that they could prove the existence of their little garage band (completely ignoring the oft-cited counter-argument of the theoretical article about my cat). This guideline has been very successful at providing consistency to our implementation of the Verifiability principle in the context of musicians and bands. Rossami (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So shouldn't we replace the word "notable" with "verifiable" on this page? The way it's written now appears strongly inclined towards establishing notability rather than verifiability; these are plainly distinct concepts, and blurring them seems unhelpful. Lupin 21:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Because there needs to be a way to decide whether or not already verified claims constitute notability. There are indeed seperate concepts; the guidelines on this page assume that the claims being put to them have already been verified. siafu 21:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Also because there are literally thousands of bands and musical artists whose existence is verifiable, especially in this day and age of the Web, but who have not really accomplished much of anything. Wikipedia may not be paper, but allowing every single verifiable band to have an article is close to allowing advertising and vanity pages. For the greater good of creating an encyclopedia, we have to draw the line somewhere. And (just in case you just noticed this because it was recently tagged as a guideline) this page has been in existence since Jan and the principles behind it were in use before that. It's just been recently (re)tagged as a guideline since there's been some mild organizational differences of opinion over whether this should be called a "guideline" or "semipolicy" or not have a template message at all. Soundguy99 15:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Erm? Why do we need to? A factual article on a verifiable band, saying simply that the band did very little is doing no harm. Trollderella 17:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C

...was a proposal for a Speedy Deletion Criterion based on WP:MUSIC. It fell just short of consensus, mainly because people are uncomfortable with having a policy refer to a guideline. There is some more discussion on the topic on the talk page there, feel free to join. Radiant_>|< 07:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just as happy. I see many band pages which just say "this is a great band" but when I do a little Googling, they turn out to have had a platinum hit or a six-country tour or something. It's just too hard to tell from a stub whether a band is notable. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Vocal profile controversy

By enforcing Wikipedia's official policy, Wikipedia:No original research, and requesting that editors WP:CITE their sources on subjects such as vocal range and the broader category, "vocal profile", I have placed myself in the center of what appears to be a wide ranging problem and controversy related to a large number of vocalist articles here (see my talk page). I am calling upon those who are involved with WP:MUSIC to offer some advice and suggestions on how this problem may be resolved. As a best practice, what should be done when, for example, a claim is made that an artist holds a range of 5 octaves when no credible source is cited, and then various anonymous editors (and at rare times non-anonymous editors) begin to argue over the finite points of such range? I am open to any and all comments regarding this matter. Hall Monitor 21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Britney_Spears#Vocal_Profile, Talk:Christina_Aguilera#Removal_of_Vocal_Profile_section, Talk:Mariah_Carey#No_sources_cited_for_Vocal_Profile_section, and Talk:Minnie_Riperton#Vocal_Profile_dispute. Hall Monitor 21:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Having the musical ability and knowledge of a gnat, I think I could contribute to this discussion by raising the pertinent questions that came to my mind after reading through the matter.

1. First, is a so-called "vocal profile" of a notable vocalist inherently notable? (As is do all singers have a notable vocal profile, or just ones where something unusual makes it natable? I suspect the answer may be yes).
2. If so, is a "vocal profile" at all verifiable? Is there some trusted resource (along the lines of IMDB) that could give these, or, failing that, some scientific or empirical way it could be measured with a meter and be verified by any Wikipedian independently? (The point here is that we don't want merely anecdotal evidence, even if it's from Stephen Hawking. I could look at a penny at home and say that it has Lincoln on it because I'm a history buff and I would recognize him anywhere, but on its face, that statement is not any more reliable than some Angelfire personal webpage. A reference to a US gov site is still needed - maybe a bad example because that's common knowledge and doesn't need citation)
3. Even if it is both notable and verifiable, is the info substantial enough that it merits its own section, and not merely a single sentence in the lead or wherever is appropriate? (To me, it would seem a bit excessive for every singer to have a section devoted to this. Presumably some singers have less notable profiles than others.)
4. In the event that a vocal profile exists in an article without citation, should it be treated like any other prose, and allowed to stay unless contested? Or is this kind of thing more numerically fact-based than most prose, and therefore require a citation to exist in an aritcle?

There, that's all for now, I'm interested to sewe what the answers to these are, as I think it will show where the consensus should lie. --Dmcdevit·t 23:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

A few singers are legitimately famous for their vocal range, and use that range as a core part of their music -- Minnie Ripperton and Mariah Carey are the best examples. To include their credited range in an article is appropriate. But for most singers, people don't care; it's the timbre of the voice, and the style of the phrasing, and the general artistry that they bring to a song that counts. Think of Tina Turner or Mick Jagger or Judy Garland or Tony Bennett -- did anyone ever care how many octaves their range was? No.

But, there's a WP music subcult that obsesses over this. Unfortunately, they can't agree on a method to measure sung high and low notes with. Some use pitch detection tools, some match by ear against a piano, some refer to sheet music, some use their own (claimed) perfect pitch, and so on. There's no convergence to agreed-upon results being achieved; edits go back and forth and around all using different values. So, no, a scientific/empirical approach doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Wasted Time R 17:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• The argument should be conducted via the talk page and those claiming that singer x has a vocal range of y octaves should be asked to cite the source of this information. If there is no source, then we shouldn't have the claim stand in the article. Capitalistroadster 17:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more. But the problem is that there are nearly 300 articles hosted by Wikipedia which provide a "Vocal Profile" section. [1] Guess how many of those cite a source. After I came to the realization that I would need to engage in 300 simultaneous conversations, it became obvious that this discussion needed to be focused in one central location. Hall Monitor 17:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• I can sympathize that trying to challenge the claims on 300 Talk pages is impractical. Many facts in WP articles are unreferenced, but either obvious and/or easily verifiable. These don't seem to be. I don't think such facts should be included without a reputable source (someone along the lines of Rolling Stone magazine, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or allmusic.com). I'd remove them with an edit summary to that effect. Niteowlneils 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You'd have to lock all the articles afterwards, because otherwise, the editors will just stick them back in. Maybe this isn't the battle you want to fight ... the WP prohibition against original research is intended to keep science articles from being wrecked by cranks; in this case, the churn over the vocal profile section usually doesn't do any damage to the rest of the artist's article. Wasted Time R 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On a related thought, do we need a citation for facts that can be obtained through multiple sources? I agree that you must cite some source initially to prove you aren't making it up or developing it yourself. However, one article added a person's height and gave a website as a source (which wasn't about the person's height but did have it). It seemed like an effort to get a link to their article and not an effort of proof. - Tεxτurε 21:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• That's all well and good, but someone apparently saw fit to start discussion of Yma Sumac's vocal profile by simply removing the section, saying it was uncited. That seems to me to be quite inappropriate. Outside of opera, there could hardly be an artist more specifically known for her range. Clearly relevant. The claims were quite specific, indicating what pieces involved hitting what notes. If it was in need of citation, fine, but normally one posts to a talk page requesting citation, rather than starting out with a deletion. If I removed every uncited claim I found in Wikipedia, I'd have to remove most articles in their entirety. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • That someone was me, as mentioned at the start of this discussion. I do apologise if my edits seem inappropriate, because they were very well-intentioned. After initiating discussions on several dozen talk pages requesting that at least one reference be cited, I realized that that every single last one of these nearly 300 Wikipedia articles were all based in original research. The logical thing to do, in my opinion, was to refer back to a single page and WikiProject Music seemed to be the most appropriate. Again, please accept my apologies if I have offended you, but these sections really should provide a credible source for their information. Hall Monitor 17:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm wholeheartedly against having a little info box with someone's range inserted. In the realm of opera, ranges change over time, as the voice matures. In the pop world, ranges may be artificially enhanced, often times so artfully that the listener is none the wiser. Doing something as straight-forward as having a note listed in a little is deceptively simplistic. --BaronLarf 20:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I just want to note that I think it's amusing to see all the people chiming in on these individual talk pages giving wildly different interpretations of the same song (such as on Mariah Carey's page, where in one song people claim to identify as the lowest note notes that are an octave apart from one another, in the same place in the song). It makes me wonder - could these people, some of whom love to drop hints about their own vocal training in their comments, not understand the meaning of the terminology they're using? ("well, i heard a C3 once but i think it was just a sharp B2" etc) Apollo58 01:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• From my experience (30+ years singing with professional groups), I do not give one jot for a record definitive range as they're not. My voice is lower by a third when I first wake up and through the course of the day it rises to the range I'm used to by mid-afternoon, added to that the age, diet, environment; any definitive "measure" is meaningless. Alf 12:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a rather belated contribution, but I'll just point out that many if not most of those "vocal range" sections were added by the same anon; when I asked him for a source, his response was roughly: "I know a girl who's vocally trained, and she told me; and I'be checked the range using a gadget I have." (I paraphrase slightly.) I don't think that there's any doubt but that most of not all of these claims are original research at best. (Some of the sections offer a reference to the sheet music, which is useless of course.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

One more late contribution. I recently expanded and clarified the vocal range article, and in the process also cleaned up the Adam Lopez article. I'm glad to see this "controversy" is here. I've been whimsically delighted by some of the characterizations of voices on various pages - Tina Turner as a soubrette! - and I'm completely in favor of removing all those galdurn "vocal profile" thingies.

First, the only time vocal range is relevant is when determining voice type (in which case the voice type itself contains all necessary information) or for the rare world record holder (Adam Lopez, Tim Stroms, etc.). Second, as I noted in the vocal range article, it's frequently impossible to compare vocal ranges across genres. Finally, and most fundamentally, voice type and vocal range simply cannot be determined from recordings. As for range, few singers record songs that call for their abolute highest and lowest notes. (There are exceptions, of course.) As for voice type, terms like "soubrette" and "Heldentenor" were developed for voices trained in a particular style, typically for years. It simply makes no sense to call a popular singer by one of those terms.

Fie on them all. Let's get rid of the vocal profile sections entirely, and if mentione needs to be made of vocal range or timbre it can be done in the article. George

Local scene of a city?

I'm not sure I like this criterion: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop)".

What would make a band the most prominent representative of the local scene of a city? Who would decide? Many bands claim to be the "best band in town", I'm not sure we should encourage this. Seems like the bands we'd want to include would probably already meet other criteria. Thoughts? Friday 23:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, and note that even the example is not a "city". I'd be OK with nation or region (I don't think just being the most prominent band in Humptulips, Washington would count as notability), but even then, it should be referenced data by the likes of Rolling Stone magazine, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or allmusic.com--if it's just weasel words EG "Some people say XYZ is the most notable band in Luxemburg polka music", with no reference, it shouldn't count. Niteowlneils 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is important in this criterion. It's probably not possible to verify that a particular band is such a notable part of the Humptulips scene, so these guidelines don't apply anyway -- an article has to be verifiable before it can even be considered a candidate for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 22:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

But it would be fair to describe Nirvana as characterising the Seattle "grunge" sound of the early nineties, or the Beatles as the most prominent representatives of the Liverpool "Mersey Sound", wouldn't it? And neither of those would take much in the way of verification. While the Beatles example is not that big a part of their image, the public image of Seattle music was "Bands that sound like Nirvana" and Nirvana's image was very closely tied to Seattle. [Other examples would include Madchester, but there were a lot of bands there].

I don't think that we can simply forbid these sorts of regional claims; regional styles of music have been prominent at least since Detroit and Motown (and I'm not old enough to comment before that).

Equally, if a band just want to be "the most famous band from XXX", it's not Wikipedia's job to make those decisions; just to report them when the whole world already agrees. --Po8crg 22:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Managers

are the managers of bands ever notable? i've been seeing a lot popping up lately (at least 3 in the past few hours) and some say they were responsible for some big name bands. what if the management was somehow involved in the success of the star? I would appreciate some opinions on this matter -- Bubbachuck 08:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

A very few managers are famous, but most aren't. In some regards they are like agents, singing coaches, hairdressers, all of whom may work for big acts but who are rarely notable in their own right. An issue with any obscure persons is obtaining verifiable information about them. Merely listing credits isn't encyclopedic. So if there are websites with articles on these people, or articles in magazines, then they are possibly notable. How many managers would qualify? -Willmcw 07:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Most managers are significant only through their work with the band. They are better discussed in context - that is, mentioned in the band's article, not in a separate article. Rossami (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There are a few notable managers - Colonel Tom Parker is one off the top of my head - but the notability of a musician doesn't rub off on his or her manager. --Lee Hunter 14:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Tour

wrt "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country"

Does this mean that the band must have gone on a headlining tour, or does acting as a support band suffice?

Spearhead 21:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably depends on the exact context. Any band on Ozzfest is probably notable, though I doubt any would meet only that criterion anyway. If the only reason a band might be notable is that they were a third-rate act on a fairly minor national tour, I'd probably vote delete. Tuf-Kat 07:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the wording should maybe be clarified here. People have been arguing lately that any band with gigs is "touring", and surely this is not what was intended. Friday (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any way to distinguish the two. What's the difference between a "tour" and a bunch of gigs in different places? If somebody does gigs all over the country, that's notable AFAIC, whether it's called a "tour" or not. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think a stricter wording would help, though I'm willing to entertain suggestions. Ultimately, these are only guidelines to help people decide the issue for themselves -- if a band really does perform all over the US, and has for a long time, that's pretty notable. A band that does a couple shows in Boston, a couple in Miami and a couple in LA probably isn't notable. I guess maybe the distinction is that in a "tour", a band advertises it as a tour (i.e. their website says, "we're touring the country, and here's all the places we're playing"), whereas a band that just happens to be well-traveled probably doesn't advertise at all (i.e. their website says, "we've got a gig at my brother's bar in Milwaukee and then another one in Seattle next week, but then we'll be back to our usual round of Boston clubs"). The purpose behind the guideline is that it indicates a level of interest across a wide region, as opposed to a couple people that think they're the best bar band out of the slim-pickings available in Boston. So, just because a band plays a couple shows in various spots doesn't really mean they've got a "national tour" -- it just means they found a couple places that would let them perform away from home. Tuf-Kat 16:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Indie labels and 2 album test

Regarding

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

I suggest something like this:

"Has released one album widely available on and promoted by a major label; or alternatively two or more albums on any label (including indie labels) which has a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, including some that are notable. A larger number of albums on a smaller indie label may also be acceptable."

My suggestion is based on these assumptions:

• The first album on an indie label means less than a major label, since, by nature, indies are all about giving unknown longshots a first chance.
• The first album on a major label, with wide distribution, is signficant, since such a label wouldn't do so, unless they expected success (though many obviously flop). Similiar logic applies to somebody starring on a major broadcast TV network prime-time show, even if big ratings haven't yet arrived. My criteria's major flaw and/or strength is that big-time flops may well get articles.

Even though, my wording may sound a little unfair to indies, I think this approach is fair to the indie labels, since more indie labels would "count" under it, when the artist has had recurring albums with them. I think we want to discourage "garage" bands, but if somebody has a persistent serious following, even if modest in size, that should count. As long, as the artist isn't paying the production/distributin costs themselves, it seems reasonable that a label wouldn't keep putting out albums for them, unless there was some serious following. --rob 05:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'd like to note "big-time flops" do deserve article, IMO. I actually came here to propose a completely unrelated addition. I think a lot of notable orchestras and the like would fail under our current guidelines, so I'd propose that any performer(s) with a history of more than fifteen years of regular performance are notable. Comments? I don't think any unnotable garage bands would qualify -- in popular music, few bands that aren't obviously notable for other reasons would qualify -- but many local orchestras and choirs would, and anything that has been around that long can be assumed de facto notable. Tuf-Kat 05:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with the albums proposal, though some standard of "singles" might be useful, particularly from before the LP era. I think refinement should be done on the "regular performance" standard, because that would mean almost every school choir or church choir would count. While I am a moderate inclusionist, I don't think every glee club deserves an article. Some good dividing line. Also remember that one way to improve these guidelines is to simply add to the music magazines category - right now some major ones aren't even there (hello, Gramophone - founded 1923 had no article until today...) We should be modifying guidelines to catch cases that won't be on the list. A major ensemble should have gotten a write up someplace in the trade press, or repeated mentions in smaller magazines. Basically, I think I would argue that if you have been performing long enough, then someone should have written you up. Stirling Newberry 04:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Arctic Monkeys, those who currently own the UK's top spot on the singles chart - have yet to record an album. DesignbyGecko 01:06 30 October 2005

Which means they qualify under the "has had a charted hit" standard.Stirling Newberry 04:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Regular performers

Immediately above, Tuf-Kat proposed that "any performer(s) with a history of more than fifteen years of regular performance are notable." I'd like to discuss it separately from the "labels" discussion above.

I'd have to oppose that standard if applied to individuals. A musician with 15 years of regular performances is a professional. As such, they may deserve some recognition in their field. That, however, does not automatically make them sufficiently notable to earn an article in a general-purpose encyclopedia. I make that argument because I respect the profession of musician but do not hold it in particularly higher regard than any other profession. A doctor would not be deserving of an article merely for having been a practicing doctor for 15 years. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Rossami. Musicianship is just a job (or a hobby), there's nothing automatically special about it. Friday (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fine with limiting it to groups. Tuf-Kat 20:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I still see potential issues with that. Many "groups" are one main guy and whoever he's got playing with him at the moment, and thus not much different than an individual. Also, again by Rossami's reasoning, a group of musicans is not so different than a group of bricklayers, for example. This would be comparable to saying that any company in existance for more than 15 years is significant. There are local bands in my town that have existed and played for 15 years, but they're still just local bands. Friday (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Besides, this proposed low bar will make just about every church choir notable. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Classical music performers

We need to develop some guidelines for classical music performers, since most of these don't really apply to them. Recent AFD discussions of Handel Choir of Baltimore and Annette Daniels have brought this to the fore. Please comment below. If there is enough interest we could start a new page to develop classical performer guidelines. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggested above that orchestras and such with 15 yrs of regular performance should be notable, which would apply to the Handel Choir. That wouldn't have helped with Annette Daniels, though one of the voters on AfD noted she was covered in a major opera magazine, which could be construed as meeting #4. Still, some guidelines might be helpful. Is any conductor of a notable orchestra notable himself? Maybe just a conductor of a really notable orchestra? I don't really know much about the modern opera or classical music scene, so I'm not sure what kinds of things make such people notable. Tuf-Kat 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid a separate classical page, or even classical-specific rules, since there would be debate about who qualifies, since the definition of classical is in dispute. For example a modern-opera, or "classicly inspired" stuff would be debatable. I think the issues brought up in recent cases, is we're currently focussed on "major label albums", "chart toppers", and "national tours". For some areas of the industry, those aren't needed to be well regarded. We discount regular/permanent performers at established notable venues, who are well known in major cities, and signficant to the cultural activity of the place. I think what properly matters more is indpendent press/critic coverage of the person, even local coverage, since our highest concern must be verifiability and significance, more than impressive statistics. --rob 18:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

These guidelines are completely unsuitable for concert music of almost any kind. By this definition many classical composers that we have articles for should be deleted, since 1. they never had a hit 2. they've never had a major article, and 3. they never went on tour. These guidelines are also a great deal higher than the notability guidelines for the rest of wikipedia, which only require a certain number of units sold - the number is 5000, which isn't enough to chart in the US, even if sold in one week. Stirling Newberry 03:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

top 100?

Are there wiki articles with top 100 charts mentioned in requirement #1 here? I presume there would be, but I can't find them Astrokey44 02:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

See Category:Record charts —Wahoofive (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Song guidelines

I'm going to move the talk regarding songs from this page to a subpage, so if you would like to comment, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Tuf-Kat 02:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Types of gigs

It seems to me that the types of gig a band or musician plays should have an influence, somehow. Being a non-public performer or musician-for-hire (wedding singers, session musicians, touring side musicians, non-featured members of orchestras) probably ought not confer notability (though like always, such musicians can be notable for other reasons). Likewise, performance in amateur musical acts (such as church choirs, high school glee clubs) shouldn't confer any special status.

Musicians who only attract small followings (such as in bars, state fairs, etc.), especially when the price of admission is free, or paying for admission to the venue (such as a bar's cover charge or two-drink minimum), are likewise not deserving (based on performance) of special status.

However, if a musician can reliably and repeatedly sell tickets for his performance(s), especially for venues larger than the average bar (doesn't have to be a 10,000-seat venue), that might confer notability. This is especially true of acts which are primarily regional in nature (and thus might not meet the "national tour" guideline), but are well-established, well-known, and highly-regarded in a particular region or city. Obviously, for a musician/band to use this guideline, the audience should be there for them; being the opening act for someone else doesn't count. And playing before an empty house doesn't count either.

Thus, the following additional guideline is proposed, with italicized letters representing numbers to be argued upon:

• Has given public performance(s) as a headline act (or as the only act on a bill), for which admission is charged specifically for the band's or musician's performance, totalling x paid tickets or y dollars in ticket revenue.

(May need customization for other countries). Other variations on the rule might apply.

--EngineerScotty 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Something along these lines seems reasonable to me. There may be some bands out there who are live acts and have few if any major records. Yet, drawing large crowds to concerts is some evidence of significance. Maybe some kind of career total ticket sales is the way to go. If a band was able to draw a large crowd once, that's a good start, but probably not enough. Friday (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Major Music Media?

The "major music media" contains a link to a category listing various music trade rags (Rolling Stone, Spin, etc.) Are these music-specific sources the only acceptable ones, or would more general-purpose entertainment media (such as Entertainment Weekly) qualify? While EW may not be indicative of artistic achievement; it is indicative of popular notice, which should suffice for notability purposes I would think.

--EngineerScotty 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would think any large media source (even say, CNN) would constitute a form of "major music media". A popular music website could work too. It's a slightly vague criterion.--Aleron235 20:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Self-published CDs

With computers and such, it's quite easy for musicians to self-publish. The current criteria exclude self-publishing and microlabels with good reason--a major label (or major indie label) provides filtering which can establish notability; whereas self-publishing can often be vanity. However, I would think that if a self-published act can demonstrate sales of a significant amount, that might establish notability if folks are buying their albums. Currently, there is a "Top 100" criteria; but I suspect that exists not to establish a mininum level of sales needed to document notability, but to acknowledge that Billboard and other such charts are in themselves sufficient to document notability. Thoughts? --EngineerScotty 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but I bet in such a case the current guidelines may still apply. If a self-published CD really sold a significant amount, presumably by that time there's sufficient coverage in music media to establish notability. Also, this is just a guideline, so IMO it doesn't need to cover the rare cases. Friday (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that self-publication doesn't qualify for notability without independent coverage. What the guidelines really ask is "does anybody other than the musician/composer/friends care about this music?" If the answer is yes, then there should be a documentary trail of some kind. Sales, articles, concerts, charted hits, profiles, CDs on record labels that have some kind of established track record - are all examples of this. (I say this as someone with one self-published CD, and others on the way - they aren't notable until someone has noted them.) Stirling Newberry 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• What if a self-published album is released for free and never printed onto a physical medium? If it is a coherent work that is only made officially available packaged inside a single file, does that make it any less of an album? What about albums that are only sold on the iTunes Music Store? Individual tracks can be obtained without purchasing the whole album. In regards to self-publishing and vanity, I think that artists whose business model is to release free music while making money via donations and merchandise sales have just as much of a right to be considered to have released an album. Yes, being signed to a major or indie label is proof of notability, but not being signed to either isn't proof of a lack of notability, assuming there's enough relevent media recognition, (granted an artist in that position is going to have to either impress a lot of people, have a large disposable income, or pull a lot of strings to get it.) --Cellophane 05:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor Change to Text

Feeling bold myself, I added "- and its page is not considered vanity -" to the line about a band being considered notable, as vanity, not notability, is what gets a page deleted, officially. I felt that this was minor enough to not be controversial or opposed, but major enough to note over here. Please flame me if that was horrible. --CastAStone 01:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. Pages get deleted for non-notability all the time, and the only "official" reason to delete a page is consensus. Besides, these guidelines are about notability, not vanity pages -- a band can clearly meet the criteria and still be vanity. This page doesn't address that issue, and probably shouldn't. Tuf-Kat 04:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

list of real Genres?

Is there a list of accepted/valid/real genres? I keep seeing weired genres (e.g. blackened death metal rock) while wikifying and wondering if people are just making these up. Can I check a list somewhere to see if people are trying to fool me? RJFJR 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no such list. I think having some general guidelines on genres would be helpful, though it would be difficult to come up with them. Tuf-Kat 18:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd love to see guidelines. I've come across quite a few genrecruft articles in the last month or so where someone has created a "genre" for a band where one never existed before. My criteria is usually whether or not this genre is accepted/referenced by a major music media (allmusic, rolling stone, pitchfork, etc.) No reference = no genre.--Isotope23 17:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What about artistically significant, poorly circulated albums, recent and otherwise?

Is it reasonable that "Notably" may include notability among subcultures and counter cultures? New movements spring up all the time (new genres, sub-genres within small subsets of artists), and are sometimes defined by a single album poorly available. Slint's album, Spiderland, wouldn't have met any of the "Notability" requirements during the first five or ten years of its existence. I'm not sure if many of Jandek's albums or Daniel Johnston's fit these requirements. Documentation of the world's popular music art underground seems like a worthy use of an encyclopedia of almost unlimited size. I would suggest we consider changing the notability requirement to more clearly allow albums such as Devandra Banhart's Nino Rojo album and Odyssey, the album released by Fischerspooner, both released within the last year or so.--Pschelden, (Oct. 17)

"Notability" is a proxy for our ability to write a functionally verifiable article on the topic. If Spiderland failed to meet the "notability" requirements during its first five or ten years, how could we have written a verifiable article on it during those initial years? Only later, with the advantage of perspective, could we attempt the article.

Remember that Wikipedia has no deadlines. We do not have to "scoop" anyone. We have the luxury of being able to wait before we begin an article. Verifiable information will not be lost in that time. The tidbits of data that will be lost are, by definition, non-verifiable and would have to be removed from the future article regardless.

Documentation of an underground may seem like a worthy goal but until the topic starts to move above ground, we've found that it's not generally known widely enough to accrue the necessary critical mass of reader/editors to ensure that the article will be both verifiable and NPOV. There are, of course, exceptions and that's why these are guidelines, not absolute rules - but they are proving to be remarkably effective rules of thumb. Rossami (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Pschelden, I'm not sure I understand your question. This page only concerns itself with the notability of groups and individuals, not their albums. AFAICT, Jandek, Slint and Fischerspooner are clearly notable. Whether or not their individual albums deserve articles is a separate question. Tuf-Kat 00:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What about stopping all this endless timewasting, and using the perfectly workable rules we already have?

Articles already have to be verifiable and factual, original research is not allowed. That rules out most vanity nominations since there are no independent sources. Let's spend less time writing increasingly convoluted attempts to codify something that can't be codified, and more time writing articles. Who cares if some of them are obscure?! Trollderella 17:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like people making articles on their garage bands, because I see it as an attempt to use Wikipedia to gain legitimacy. And these days, there are sources for vanity bands. Every kid with a myspace page thinks it makes his band as verifiable and significant as would being on the cover of Rolling Stone. In the end, many editors feel a band needs some level of significance to rate an article. It's the standard argument- my car is verifiable but not significant, so it shouldn't have an article. Friday (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Myspace pages are hardly a credible source per WP:V. Kappa 18:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, indeed they are not, so they would not be allowed, because they are not independently verifiable. So we are back to, 'why do we need a complicated new policy'? The current one already works. Your car would not get an article because there are not enough verifiable facts about it to make anything more than a sub-stub. Everything that is verifiable about your car can be said about that make of car. Your car is also not really independently verifiable except by original research. There are no third party reviews of your car, nothing except registration papers, which say nothing that is not true of all cases of that model. Trollderella 18:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Certainly myspace pages aren't reliable sources. But that doesn't stop people from using them. I've seen people argue many times that a myspace page or other personal website is a credible source. Such arguments even prevail a surprising amount of the time. It seems to me that when it comes down to things like Afd, many editor's standards for reliable sources are way out of line with policies and guidelines. To me, this guideline is valuable because it's a useful way to keep junk out of the encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

But the guideline is about what a reliable verifiable source is, not what 'notability' means. Obviously a website that is written by the band itself is not, in and of itself, sufficient to be verifiable, it is really a kind of original research. Some third party reference is needed for it to be verifiable. I don't see why the concept of 'notable' is useful at all. `Trollderella 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Notability" is a proxy for verifiability. If a subject is sufficiently "notable", the community has generally found that we have a very good chance of having the critical mass informed reader/editors who can find independent sources to write a neutral, fact-based article. Yes, we could take all such arguments back to "verifiability" but when we used to do that, we ended up repeating the same arguments over and over. These "notability" guidelines are proving to be remarkably effective rules of thumb which help us achieve the same result in a more objective fashion and with less far less animosity. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That seems really odd. The 'notability' guidelines seem to have little concensus, even a brief glance at AFD would verify that (see schools, for example). Verfiability is objective, notability is inherently a matter of opinion (litterally whether it is worthy of making a note of) to whom? Whether or not it can be verified is a matter of fact. Trollderella 22:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, the notion of notability as a substitute for verifiability is somewhat controversial. There are plenty of editors who feel this way, and many who do not. Some Wikipedians feel that only verifiability is neccessary for inclusion. However, if you combine that stance with low standards for verifiability (considering a personal website as a proper source, for example), you open the flood gates for all kinds of articles that many would consider undesirable vanity. In my opinion, having articles on random garage bands makes Wikipedia look bad. Obviously, there are many editors who disagree. Importance is a hotly contested topic, and may always be, but to me it's perfectly understandable to expect a topic covered here to be somehow important. This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Friday (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• How is "makes wikipedia look bad" a valid reason for excluding content? Kappa 00:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is an information source, its standing is, in fact, important. Stirling Newberry 04:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, not everyone thinks that it is. However, Afd goes by "consensus". So, at the end of the day, if a sufficient number of editors think WP is better off without an article than with it, they say "delete" and it gets deleted. Whether they explain their reasoning as "unencyclopedic", "non-notable", or "unverifiable", in the end it means the same thing. As some people are fond of saying, "consensus is the only real reason for deletion". I don't neccessarily agree that this is always true, but it seems pretty close to me. Friday (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

However, AfD can be fixed. I've seen many instances where editors gang up and vote often unbacked "keep" votes to retain articles they like. --FuriousFreddy 01:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole concept of 'notability' can't ever really be much more than 'what I like'. That's why AFD is so contentious, because two people's definitions of 'what I like' are never the same. That's why I'm proposing that a gold standard like verifiability is going to be much less pain, and cause much less fruitless arguing. Trollderella 16:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is true only for editors of insufficient intellectual maturity. I strongly disliked that silly "Survivor" TV show that used to be on all the time, but I could never argue with a straight face that it shouldn't have an article. If we could agree on standards for verifiability, I might be inclined to say it's the only thing needed, but as long as people are using their AOL homepage to establish verifiability, I think importance guidelines are helpful too. But, I understand this disagreement has been going on for years, I doubt it will end anytime soon. Friday (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

But does anyone really think that their own AOL homepage establishes verifiability? Surely that is original research? If the only way that we know that a garage band exists is that it has an AOL homepage, then that's not enough, because we only have the word of the band itself. If it has newspaper reviews, then it becomes verifiable. I don't really understand the issue here. Trollderella 23:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I may just be somewhat dismayed at what passes for verifiability here and there. But really, that's a side topic. To address your actual concern, I can tell you this: To me, being verifiable as a band isn't nearly enough. There are millions of bands out there, and only a fraction of them are encyclopedic, in my opinion. The local music press where I come from may review many local bands, but they're still just local bands. To me, verifiability or not, being a local band is no more significant than being a local company. Friday (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

But that's the point 'to me' nuclear physics isn't that interesting. It doesn't matter whether someone writes an article about it, because I'm not going to read it. And yet, somehow, I manage to let fans of this topic write endless articles, as long as what they are writing is verifiable, factual and neutral. As long as the article about the band is the same, I have no problem with it. I will never read it, but who cares? Trollderella 00:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that most of us would disagree with your statement above that the "whole concept of 'notability' can't ever really be much more than 'what I like'." In fact, notability has nothing whatsoever to do with what I like but everything to do with what the public likes. Notability is a measure of how many people are talking about a topic - how much independent coverage it has received. The assumption (and it is an assumption) is that an article on a notable topic will likely draw enough attention that we can be reasonably sure that the contents of the article are verifiable and NPOV. Trivial topics will only be written by one or maybe two people. That is not sufficient for the rest of the community to feel confident that the article's contents have been verified or are being protected from subtle vandalism such as the addition of false facts. Notable topics, on the other hand, draw many reader/editors. We have a much higher confidence level that the contents of the article have been verified.
This logic doesn't apply to most traditional encyclopedic topics such as nuclear physics because they draw a significant critical mass of informed reader/editors regardless of their general popularity. Notability is, however, proving to be a useful proxy for topics of pop culture, current events and other topics which are not traditionally encyclopedic topics. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

But what really seems to be going on is that for minority interest subjects (like little known bands) you have a sort of mob rule where a large number of people who are not interested are easily able to outnumber the few who are. On subjects close the heart of western Slashdotters, like nuclear physics and computer games, the concensus is nearly always to keep, whereas on other topics like schools in the US, the is no concensus. All you've really got is a majority of the people in the room who agree - it's a subtle type of bias, and reflects simply "What we like". Trollderella 15:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• That is simply not true. Wikipedia contains a plethora of minority interest subjects. For instance, many Wikipedians (such as myself) are self-proclaimed Pokemon haters, but would still agree to keeping information on them.
• What many people call 'notability' is in fact identical to what you call 'verifiability' (WP:V, which interestingly enough is not quite the same as how most dictionaries define it). Several notability guidelines have consensus, such as WP:MUSIC and WP:FICT. Several others are in development, such as WP:CORP. And several others have no consensus, such as WP:SCH. It's a matter of babies and bathwater. Radiant_>|< 17:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Trollderella, I'm confused. If the band is "little known", how can the community at large be sure that the contents of the article are verifiable? Rossami (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Local bands

I still don't get the bias against local bands. If by local band, you mean:

• Teenage garage band which never performs outside of the drummer's garage (despite dreams of being famous one day)
• Wedding musicians
• Wannabe band that gets one or two gigs in a corner bar but isn't invited back
• The George Washington High School 10th grade wind ensemble
• etc...

then I understand the desire to keep these sorts of acts out of Wikipedia. None of the above likely has any appeal to the general public, nor any independent artistic significance. WP:V is likely to eliminate these as appropriate topics for articles.

However, if "local band" refers instead to the larger set of acts which have failed to gain national (or international) prominence, but which may have prominence within a particular city or region--then what's the problem? I can think of numerous bands in my hometown (Portland, Oregon) which have been playing for years; which give regular public performances (and routinely attract significant crowds), which have been reviewed in numerous local media; which receive airplay on local radio, which have produced locally-successful records--including on established local labels, and which have significant local followings. Many of these bands, however, have not become national hits. In some cases, they may only have regional appeal (at least in the opinion of A/R persons at major labels); in cases they may still be "paying their dues"; and in other cases the band members may prefer to remain as a local act and not desire national tours or recording contracts.

I think that acts which meet the above qualifications are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Such acts certainly meet the criteria set forth in WP:V.

However, many would fail to meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC, which seem to assert that a band MUST be national in scope in order to merit inclusion. I think that this is fundamentally wrong. We should be able to craft a standard (and may have one already--WP:V) which allows regionally significant acts, without opening the floodgates to the Wyld Stallions of the world.

--EngineerScotty 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Scotty's argument, I would like to commend him for making a reasoned argument for changing the criteria, rather than incendiary words like "endless timewasting". —Wahoofive (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• The WP:MUSIC criteria do not mention anywhere that the bands must be national in scope. Many local bands have in fact released albums (crit#3), have been featured in magazines (crit#4) or indeed are among the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (crit #6). Indeed the point of the criteria is to weed out the four examples you cite (teenage garage bands, etc) and not in any way those local bands you mention that have been playing for years, have been featured in local music media, and have locally-successful records. Radiant_>|< 22:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Many local bands will meet various criteria, as Radiant pointed out. I'd be willing to entertain suggestions on expanding the criteria, though. Tuf-Kat 02:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply: albums won't count since they aren't with major indies, magazines won't count since the standard is "major". The bar in this article is an order of magnitude higher than the wikipedia guidelines for notability. Stirling Newberry 04:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Demento

In an article currently up for deletion in AfD one of the voters is citing being played on Dr. Demento's show an indication that he's notable. It appears Dr. Demento is a syndicated show, two hours in length with approximately 30 songs played per episode. From the shows site: "It's a mix of free-wheeling unpredictable mix of music and comedy. The Doctor plays new funny songs sent in by amateur and professional singers and comedians.". Is this a reasonable proof that the person is notable? If so (and if not!), should language be added to WP:MUSIC clarifying this? BTW, the specific AfD is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neil_Cicierega. This specific individual has had his music played on the show eight times. --Locke Cole 02:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can codify exactly what kind of radio airplay is necessary to be notable. My opinion is that a one-shot (although I realize you said eight) feature on a show which specializes in the offbeat isn't very significant, unless the listenership is very large. It's like somebody getting their 15 minutes of fame on the news for saving a cat stuck in a tree, or whatever. If it gets national airplay, they're notable. If it only got local news, fuhgettaboutit. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The show is nationally syndicated (on "100 stations coast to coast" according to his site [2]), but like you say, it's just one play really, and more like a 15-minutes-of-fame than an actual acknowledgement that his music is popular. It might be worth considering a guideline/codification, even if it is vague, to deter people from trying to use shows such as this as proof of notability. (At 150 songs per month on this show, it's only a matter of time before someone else who has had their work played on the show claims it makes them notable on here). --Locke Cole 04:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think being played on Dr. Demento's show is an indication of notability, but unless there's more evidence in addition to that, I'd still say it's not notable. A guideline involving radio airplay would be an appropriate addition here, I think, but being on Demento's show eight times should definitely be below the bar. Tuf-Kat 05:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Based solely on Doctor Demento's notability, I would be inclined to treat this as equivalent to a mention in a major music magazine. For most purposes, it seems to me you can treat Dr. Demento as a notable critic. Phil Sandifer 04:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. A mention. Note that a mention in a major music magazine would also not qualify a band as notable; the guideline calls for a band to have been prominently featured. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed additions

For musicians:

1. Meets the criteria for biographical inclusion in Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies.
2. Has won or placed a major music competition.
3. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show.
4. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
5. Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.
2. Meets the criteria for biographical inclusion in Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies
3. Has been the subject of a biography published as a book, or has several articles by at least 2 different authors in the peer reviewed publications.
4. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
5. Has written a song, or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition not established expressly for new comers.
6. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.

Stirling Newberry 03:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I like both proposals, though I don't really think a band that performs a single TV show theme song is inherently notable. Can you give some examples of "major music competitions"? I'm also not sure about anyone who writes or cowrites a single song for a notable band is notable. Tuf-Kat 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In classical music the Tchaikovsky International Piano Competition would be one such. And yes a single theme song is notable, because it will be heard by millions of people, and there will be people who ask "who was the person who..." One hit wonders, however obtained, are notable, if only for their one hit. A songwriter for a notable band has met the policy for inclusion - because their work has been seen by enough people - these guidelines should codify hard evidence of meeting policy on inclusion, not attempt to overturn policy by obscurity. Stirling Newberry

Bias

I am concerned that the current guidelines are overly biased towards recorded music. The article is by extension oddly predjudiced against indigineous and "folk" musics. I'm not sure what to do about this, as I'm not sure what notability requirements would be appropriate for that area, but it seems to me an important point to raise - that we're very western-centric and chart-centric with this guideline in a way that is biased. Phil Sandifer 17:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you that for the most part they simply do not apply. Folk and indigineous musics gain their reputations through completely different social mechanisms. Today, we deal with them as exceptions. Do you have evidence that this approach is failing? Rossami (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is yet another valid criticism of the current guidelines, which seem far, far higher than policy. Stirling Newberry 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There's not really any reason to have guidelines for folk and indigenous musicians -- they're meant to guide AfD discussions. AfD doesn't have a problem with folk and indigenous musicians, so the guidelines don't deal with them. Feel free to propose some points to broaden it. I guess my feeling is that it'd be fairly pointless, since it would apply to very few articles that are nominated for deletion. Tuf-Kat 06:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this page should renamed then, because I (and probably others) expected something completely different from a page of "Music Guidelines". These are modern popular song/groups guidelines at best. This doesn't seem to apply music to classical music, much of non-western music, music before the twentieth century. So if they don't apply to "music" and aren't meant to be, rename the page to something which gives some impression of what it does apply to. --Sketchee 21:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggested proposing some guidelines -- that would be a Good Thing. I think any music-related notability guidelines should be on this page. We don't have any guidelines on indigenous performers, non-Western and indigenous performers because no one has come up with any. No one has come up with any because it's not an issue that comes up very often. Tuf-Kat 00:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's not an issue, why make them up? Isn't it much better to move the page to a title that describes the content that we do have and want? --Sketchee 02:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Because this page should be a home for any music-related notability guidelines that may come about in the future. That would be easier than having separate pages for different kinds of music. Tuf-Kat 04:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

For any other article we would put content wear it belongs and merge later if it becomes appropriate. There is a lot of confusing by having the mismatch of a broad header and very specific text. We could at least rearrange the content to make things clearer. I haven't seen your suggestions for solution to that problem either, but if not a move then surely there's a compromise. Going through the list of 22 points none of the requirements for notability here apply to many music articles I work on. No need to add additional guidelines here as their notability is already covered in other guidelines (ie WP:BIO), although this page is supposed to apply to all music. With the first list applying to "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc)", it can be clarified is a list of notability tests based on media coverage and sources. (BTW, the link "major music media" I think should point to Category:Music publications instead of Magazines.) It could be clearer that if a music article doesn't meet these tests, it may still be notable as a music subject according to the more general wikipedia guidelines. --Sketchee 05:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

random thoughts

I believe that the root source of conflict on these guidelines is that nearly all musicians (and their circle of promoters and fans) seek a wider audience. Contrast this with the fact that very few musicians have a meaningful effect on the course of musical history.

Just as a wild guess, I imagine that in the U.S., at least one out of 100 people has been part of a performing musical group that seeks a broader audience. The nature of musicianship is that most of these people will end up participating in several if not many musical groups during their lifetime. Many of these will make recordings and perform publicly in a variety of venues, often for pay. Live music is valued in the U.S., and local musicians who have even marginal levels of talent but are willing to put in the sweat can get gigs. I've played or sung in perhaps a dozen performing ensembles, at least two of which have received radio airplay, and four of which have distributed recordings. But I haven't affected musical history in any meaningful way, except insofar as I have strengthened the local music scene somewhat in a few places. There is no lasting historical record of the things I've done, and that's where the problem is -- ephemeral local acts vanish without a trace after some years. In time, all the one-horse acts will pose this problem for Wikipedia: once their web site has vanished, they no longer get airplay, their CDs are out of print, and the five year retention period that most libraries have for publications like The Onion has been exhausted, we're not going to be able to check facts.

It is for these reasons that we are, IMO, wise to exclude bands and musicians whose claims to notability are weak: there are too many of them and they do not remain verifiable over time. Look back at some bands 20 years or more old. Consider the Starland Vocal Band, clearly notable since their bit hit was a part of the consciousness of the era, but it's nearly impossible to get accurate information about them and the article shows it. How much worse off we'll be with the garage band articles we have.

With regard to composers and performers in classical genres, I agree that a different set of standards should apply. In general, any musical group, musician, or composer prior to about 1910 or so where surviving information accessible in the public record still exists should be eligible for inclusion. The lens of history makes it clearer which of these are notable, and those that are now verifiable are likely to remain so.

With regard to current classical performers, I find that we simply don't have a problem with articles of questionable merit on these and so guidelines would serve no purpose.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The "outside mass media" guidelines

The first three are fine. #4 seems to say that anyone who "has had melodies, tunes or standards used in a tradition or school in a particular genre" is notable, which is very unclear and extremely broad (what does has had mean? published? composed? popularized? set to music/lyrics?). #5 is unclear -- is it the subculture or the publication that must be notable? Tuf-Kat 07:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Itself is singular and therefore refers to the subculture (that is, non-notable subcultures don't count). Both guidelines are plural - one tune doesn't make someone notable as a composer/songwriter/musician - but an individual who has a number of melodies or standards attributed to them probably is worth an article as an important progenitor of a style. This will also cover most musicians important in genres which are still driven by "playing by ear" rather than being published. "has had" - since the guideline applies to music which is "notable" that means published/recorded/written about. It has to hit paper eventually for us to document it, otherwise its "original research". The guideline makes it so that individuals who contributed to a genre before it became fixed on paper, but who are still known about, at least by tradition "count" as soon as the genre becomes notable and verifiable sources describe them. We might also include musicians who have been sampled repeatedly, even if they have not charted, or released albums on "important" independent labels. If they are being used by others consistently, then they are probably notable. Stirling Newberry 04:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I slightly tweaked both of them, not intending to change the meaning. Are these acceptable to you? Tuf-Kat 05:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me, let's hope everyone else agrees. Stirling Newberry 10:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

I am requesting that notability guidelines use a central naming scheme similiar to WP:MoS. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Requested moves.—jiy (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Night Stalker

I'm not sure if Night Stalker and its related topics can be considered notable. Refer to these edits by User:Themaddog. Shawnc 18:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say no, it looks like a vanity complex. Someone should afd them - I can find, erm less than no documentation on the whole lot of them. Stirling Newberry 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I put them up for afd Spearhead 21:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent AfD for KOMPRESSOR

The recent AfD for KOMPRESSOR closed with an overwhelming keep consensus, although he doesn't meet any current WP:MUSIC guidelines. Several voters mentioned that we need a criterion to cover cases like KOMPRESSOR's. I would suggest allowing artists with a strong following on the internet (if we can quantify that somehow) or some kind of status as an internet phenomenon to be included. Artists like Lagoona, who were very popular on the old MP3.com, should also be taken care of under this definition. --Idont Havaname 04:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Internet popularity may be quantified by a suitable web search. The methodology for such a search is a different topic, however: KOMPRESSOR returns 3m+ hits but many of these are not related to the subject in question. KOMPRESSOR +Andreas returns 100,000+ hits, but even these may contain some unrelated hits. Shawnc 18:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pop Idol/X-Factor: What would count as placed?

It's a major music competition, but what would constitute as placed. Would getting to the final rounds count, or the final night? Sceptre^(Talk) 14:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comment guideline changes

I would like to request that when people change guidelines, especially, when they do so unilaterly, they please include a comment in the edit summary. I notice this edit, which added the words "over notable musical venues" as a condition to counting a national tour. This was slipped in a while ago, and I only noticed it recently. Now, that's a signficant change, that excludes most venues. Now, this change may well have gotten wide support, but I don't like this business of whoever wishes changes what they like, and hopes it doesn't get noticed. Most people haven't the time, to carefully examine all of the many changes on the document. It's hard enough just keeping track by reading the edit summaries, let alone reviewing the full content of every change. If this guideline keeps get changed without consensus, it will stop having the wide acceptance it has had. This document is supposed to reflect consensus, not direct it. --Rob 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Propose we remove the "notable" in "notable musical venues"

I don't think "notable venue" should be used here. It's rather meaningless. A notable performer can do a major tour, but all the places are still pretty much the same, and non-notable (despite having lots of fans attend). On the flip side, a non-notable minor person, can play a famous venue, but their performance at the place is insignficant. Famous people lend fame/notability to a place. But usually, a famous place does not lend fame/notability to users of that place, in my opinion. Note: I'm basically asking for the rules to be what they used to be. --Rob 09:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Anyone can perform in Carnegie Hall (or pretty much any other famous venue) if they're willing to pay the fee to rent it for the night. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See, for example, Florence Foster Jenkins. --EngineerScotty 18:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I removed it. Essentially my edit undid this uncommented edit. This wasn't a revert though, as a number of other changes were made in the mean-time, and I left all of those alone. --Rob 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"A band that is otherwise extremely notable"

One of the criteria of WP:MUSIC currently reads, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." Lengsel was recently speedily deleted for not meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria, but it looks to me like they do, under this criterion. All three of the band's members are in the band Extol, who have released two albums on Endtime Productions and two on Century Media. I've recently added a short bit about Lengsel in the Extol article, though would they deserve their own article? (I'm going to redirect Lengsel to Extol for now.) I've also contacted the person who tagged the article for speedy deletion. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody have been able to tell all of this from reading the article, without looking elsewhere? I find generally many (not all) tag and/or vote for deletion without bothering to do any research (e.g. they read the article, and that's it). It sounds like you could write a new article that would be kept, as long as you're much clearer about its signficance (which may mean redundantly saying the signficance of the other group). Unfortunately, nobody can predict future AFD outcomes. --Rob 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Another question: does Extol qualify as "extremely notable"? That's a more stringent criterion than the notability required to merit a WP article. My personal opinion is that it's better to have the redirect and a mention in the more significant article, as you have now done, than a tiny stub on an otherwise insignificant band — also recommended in the policy quote you cited. (Also, whether Rob likes it or not, current CSD rules are that certain kinds of articles must assert their own notability, without requiring homework on the part of nominators/voters.) —Wahoofive (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everybody is allowed to hide behind rules if they wish. I just wish more would use common sense, and take a a couple minutes to look into something, through google, or maybe allmusic, or whatever; and not assume because they never heard of somebody that they're nobody. But yes, the rules do not require you do any homework, or any research. I think without doing research, one is able to make very limited contributions to an encyclopedia. But, I do concede the written rules don't back me up on this. --Rob 01:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Music wikicities

Theres a music wikicities [3] where perhaps some of the better nn band articles could be moved to, rather than being deleted. -- Astrokey44|talk 14:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since they are also licensed under GFDL, I agree. We should try to politely point the new users there. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I've seen this page being cited in speedy deletion tags. As far as I understand it, this is a guideline only. The only CSD that specifically relates to music is CSD A7: Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. In my opinion a discography, or other text relating to releases, is an assertion of notability. I came across this after restoring Cat Butt, who aren't exactly famous but since even people in Scotland (specifically me) have releases by them on a very famous label (Sub Pop), deserve at least an AFD. Leithp 03:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. I would only support speedy deletion in the case of garage bands with no releases, or joke bands (meaning not serious, obviously there are several artists who use humor as a central part of their work). --Aleron235 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

notably unnotable

if i read your guidelines correctly, a musician who produced no works, had no performances and was otherwise unknown to the world at large but who perhaps taught or otherwise influenced a musician who "hit the bigtime" qualifies for inclusion whereas a musician/band who has played for thousands sold countless self released albums and has a following but has avoided (either on purpose or by chance) the major labels, journals and whatnot does not.

does this make sense to you?

You are not reading these guidelines correctly. A musician that produced no works could not be notable simply by being an influence on somebody famous. There are numerous ways a band that sold thousands of self-produced albums could be notable. Tuf-Kat 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

from the guidelines page:

For performers outside of mass media traditions:

Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.

what am i missing?

I think you're just taking it a little to literally. I beleive the thought is, suppose PersonA develops a unique style/approach of music, but nobody pays attention, and he gets almost no sales. But, PersonB was one of the few who paid attentioned, based their work on PersonA, and becomes incredibly successfully. We should give both PersonA and PersonB articles (provided adequate verifiable info). However, Britney Spears grade 5 music teacher, might not warrant an article, even if she was very influential. However, if Elvis attributed his style to an unsigned artist he saw performing live, then said artist would be notable by extension (my examples are hypothetical, and I can't think of a specific case at the moment). --Rob 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to Britney Spears grade 5 music teacher because neither are "outside of mass media traditions" - presumably both Spears and the music teacher partake, and have always partook, in mass media. It's meant to cover primarily Third World performers that would not otherwise likely qualify. The only American I can think of it might apply to is Tee Tot, who probably doesn't have an article now, (and probably couldn't due to verifiability), but he was an old homeless man who taught Hank Williams the blues. Tuf-Kat 07:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, apparently wiki even knows his real name Tuf-Kat

thank you for that (i'll avoid the digression into the many unsigned influences "the king" failed to give credit to--woops too late!) and you are correct regarding the literalness with which i began and even more correct in realizing the error that lies therein. which is why i mentioned it. because i fear the maintainers of this site may be making the same mistake. whereas my literal interpretation has lead me to make a (pedantically) correct interpretation of the guidelines, the maintainers same error could lead them to remove pages that should remain. fyi i don't use wikiPedia much although until 2 days ago i had nothing but good things to say about it. when i heard a band i very much liked but had not heard of, googled them and thereby came to wikiPedia for info i found a page marked for possible deletion because the band, depite having at least a national reach, was not considered notable according to guidelines which appear to rely too heavily on traditional modes of publication and citation. a fact so ironic given the nature of wikiPedia i should be laughing rather than debating the very idea.

but of course the guidelines are just that, guidelines and we can talk until our fingertips are sore about what the intent is regardless of what the guidelines say and i even have hope the intent is in keeping with my personal preferences but in the end the site is not mine, the effort is not mine and so the decision should not be mine and even if you remove the page for The Devil Makes Three i'm still going to buy their albums and perhaps even take pride in the fact that my music collection contains dozens (at least) of albums that i consider noteworthy but that would not qualify for inclusion in an otherwise fine repository of knowledge.

Relax, the system is working as it is supposed to. We have an article (The Devil Makes Three (band)) which makes absolutely no claims to being something that anybody anywhere in the world might ever be interested in reading about and even manages to cram about a half-dozen grammar and terminology errors into two sentences. Somebody nominated it for deletion, since it was on a topic that was not apparently of interest to anyone, anywhere. There was some discussion, and the article was kept because there was a consensus that the topic is likely notable. That's precisely what is supposed to happen. Tuf-Kat 02:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)