Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 5

message: What exactly is a "national tour"?  I've seen a few articles about novice groups/artists with (maybe) one album from an indie label claiming notability because they went on a "national tour" promoting their album.  This criteria appears to allow artists/groups at the very start of their careers an article in Wikipedia.  Can other editors suggest some revisions that might make this criterion clearer?  Rklawton 22:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already not as simply as having a national tour.  WP:V requires reliable (read independent) coverage, to verify that the tour occurred.  So, while a band can easily play gigs in different states, its not so easy to get coverage of the tour in reliable media (e.g. which doesn't include promotional material).  --Rob 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That still seems pretty thin.  So if I load up my minibus with my sleeping bag, beer cooler, and pan flute, visit a half-dozen cities from coast to coast, and get a few local papers to document that I played a gig in their town, then I can count this as a national tour and have an article in Wikipedia?  Rklawton 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You nailed it.  It's not nearly as thin  as you think, I'd personally rather it be a regional tour, but I haven't gotten much traction on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A reasonable assumption with a tour, is that your are not paying for it.  Others have chosen to hire you, and others have chosen to write about you (ergo, they noted your acheivements, as they deemed you noteworthy, as in your notable).  If you, entirely on your own, do what you say, that's not a "tour".  That's tourism.  This guideline isn't designed to require fame and fortune.  It's designed to include the notable, and exclude the non-notable.  It helps stop autobiographies, but not noteworthy biographies.   I think the existing guideline, interpretted with common sense, isn't so easy to pass, as suggested.  --Rob 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "promotional tours" for first-release albums?  The folks footing the bill aren't the fans but the producers trying to make a profit.  I've seen several cases where bands, albums, promotional tour, and Wikipedia articles have all occurred within a few weeks.  Rklawton 02:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, that in such a case, if its a national tour, covered in reliable media, then yes,they probably should get an article.  To clarify my comments above, what counts is the band itself are not paying their own way, and most importantly the coverage of the tour is fully inndependent.  And of course, as with any article, is must be written from a netural point of view.  If somebody makes an article on such a band, and it is neutral, and fully verifiable, I see no great problem.  Because the band has been covered by independent sources, Wikipedia is not introducing them to the world, as they've already been "discovered".  --Rob 04:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the difference between the band paying their own way and the band's producers paying their way?  Also, just because something is independently verifiable, doesn't make it notable.  Given the level of difficulty in achieving any of the other criteria, this one seems like an easy hurdle for anyone with a bankroll (but not necessarily talent or a fan base) to overcome.  Rklawton 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is, that somebody is not deciding they are notable themselves.  I really don't understand why you think this is so easy.  By your logic, we shouldn't include bands with two albums on a major label, since such a label, could ignore profits, and produce the albums with no hope of sales.  After all, you're arguing that somebody with a bunch of money is blindly going around bankrolling bands, sending them to city after city, across the country, with no hope of commercial success.  Anyway, I have to get back to the whole issue of independent coverage.  You can't buy reliable sources.  Of course you can buy media, but media which is easily bought doesn't count as a reliable source.  I want to emphasize, Wikipedia, by following reliable sources, is not giving anybody a free intro the public.  We're only covering what others (independently) have covered.  I'm just not clear on what the harm is here.  Can you give me an example of some band(s) that have a national tour, covered in reliable sources, which you feel don't warrant articles they've been given by this "lax" guideline. --Rob 04:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread is about the national tours criterion.  If an artist has two albums under a national label, they already qualify, so the national tour question would be moot.  The question in this thread is what to do about artists who meet no other notability criteria (for example: artists with a single album under an indie label) claiming notability due to a national promotional tour.  By promotional, I mean one sponsored by the label's producers to generate sales.  When such publicity tours occur, it's a matter of course to generate press releases about the tour.  After all, publicity is the entire point, and local papers use these to report on local performances.  The end result, however, is that the artist can then claim notability when, in fact, they have accomplished nothing more notable than common marketing techniques.  Rklawton 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No its not always the case. I can point out numerious AFDs where the criterea of 'two or more albums on indie lables' didn't satisfy the requirement in the minds of many editors. Not one single requirement dosn't act as a "smoking gun" that reinforces the notion of a band's notability, but a combination of them. So the fact that a band or artist activaly goes out on a nation wide tour, does give them some precident, and should be left alone as-is. I have no problem with the current wording of it, and it shouldn't be changed. RiseRobotRise 20:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Tour

message: Most DJs only tend to play on weekends.  If for example a DJ played between 20 and 50 international gigs per year, would this qualify under the spirit of the guideline?  One Night In Hackney 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it would, if Radiohead played 50 dates on an international tour, and only played on fridays and saturdays, that should also count. RiseRobotRise 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DJs and "touring"

message: First 3 messages copied from user talk pages Tyrenius 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Has written a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition."  Is that a US usage, because it's not UK, so it reads oddly and if anything would be interpreted in the UK as won "any place" i.e. maybe 5th place, which I take it is not the intent. The obvious solution then is simply to say "had won or come second in a major music competition." Does that work for you? Tyrenius 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Now changed to "Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition". Tyrenius 12:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other place, huh?  Does this include "last place"?  Rklawton 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hope so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why mention "place" at all?  Why not just say a song that was entered into a major music competition?  And what qualifies as "major"?  Rklawton 14:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, because anything can enter into a competition, but not everything will place in it.  "Major" is deceptively subjective. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, "last" is also a place, so is 99th.  How about "top five" (or less)?  Rklawton 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd imagine 32 finalists is reasonable, and when you're talking potential of twelve at MerleFest.  If anything, I consider your examples reasons to not touch it - it's pretty solid as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "win or place" should be fine.  I sure don't see cruft when I look in :Category:Kerrville New Folk Competition finalists.  If this criteria is creating a problem somewhere please show me where articles are being created that shouldn't be.  -MrFizyx 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "a song or composition which has won or placed in a major music competition"

message: What is the position about non-English sources used as reference to to provide notability? I can understand that links to non-English sources don't fit in the English language wikipedia. But that makes it hard to prove the notability of non-English artists. It would imply that an British or North-American artist is notable as soon as he's written about, but an artist from a non English speaking country first has to be noticed internationally. Could putting the links to the non-English sources in the talk page be an option? I noticed that those links aren't actually checked before a (speedy) deletion, or at least they weren't in this case: Talk:FFF (artist).
Any suggestions on how to resolve this kind of problem would be welcome, as I strongly believe that the article FFF (artist) shoudn't have been deleted the first time and that notability can be proven, though only via Dutch sources.
psi36 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Referencing from a non-English source is fine, although English language references are preferred on the English Wikipedia.  even has a parameter to display the language, if it is other than English. The reliability of the source is more important than the language. Prolog 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English sources 

message: For now.  This edit, while entirely in good faith, appears to have weakened the guideline in a way that no clear consensus exists for.  I've added the necessary language that the change was designed to clear up, but I'm not sure we should be weakening the guideline in such a way without some discussion.  I'm surprised no one noticed this until now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll note that people reverting me are still not bothering to demonstrate the consensus here, either.  This is patently absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive changes reverted 

message: I have added the disputed tag because of tendentious editing by some and because of a lack of demonstrated consensus for the changes by others.  Consensus for anything to happen at WP:N does not introduce consensus here, and it's arguable whether there's really a consensus at WP:N to begin with.  Hopefully people will actually be willing to discuss. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too comfortable with the recent change, as changing criterion #1 to "central criterion" has changed the numbering of all the remaining criteria. These numbers are referenced from several discussions. I've used "#5" to refer to "Has released two or more albums on a major label or..." several times, but that criterion has now become #4. Prolog 15:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but I imagine that we could just do #1 (central criterion) instead without disrupting that. If this were to be done, would you find the change acceptable? Seraphimblade 15:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could, but there is no actual "central criterion" by consensus.  WP:N points here (and to other individual criteria), and doesn't even address itself as "central," but merely a criterion everyone shares.  There's no reason to downgrade anything here that I can see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what we're looking for is to develop exactly such a consensus, in the way that every such one gets developed-talking it out! Personally, I'm all for establishing WP:N as the central criterion-no matter what may meet clause A subparagraph 14 in some secondary criteria, if there's not enough source material to write a decent article, then there's not enough source material to write a decent article, and it's not an appropriate encyclopedic subject. Seraphimblade 15:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Radiant has now removed the tag without ever commenting on this page.  Small update for those who care. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As an update, my original reversion and talk page post on this topic was on 24 January.  Since then, proponents of the change have not demonstrated the necessary consensus - or worked to build it.  I plan on reverting back to the uncontroversial consensus version tonight unless there's a substantitive argument not to do so.  Thanks for most everyone's patience. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey BDJ, what would that wording be exactly?  Though I don't care much for the wording "central criterion", I think something like that is appropriate for articles on musicians and ensembles.  What are your specific concerns?  I'm not saying you should or should not revert.  I would like to see the dispute clarified. -MrFizyx 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This version, while incorporating your recent edits.  This is essenntially the agreed upon version prior to the edit in December. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me.  I don't have a particularly strong feeling either way, but it does seem reasonable to work some reference back to WP:N eventually. -MrFizyx 16:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, with discussion. d;-)  There's some interesting stuff going on there currently anyway, so I'm hoping the discussion over there can be carried over to individual criteria, but not without consensus, and not until the changeover occurs, which will be a while. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed tag 

message: What could possibly be wrong with stating that all articles must meet WP:V and WP:RS? WP:V, especially, is a core policy-this guideline couldn't trump or cancel it even if it specifically stated an exemption! I don't think there's a thing wrong with asking people to remember that (especially given that I've more than once seen CD's themselves used as "references", I don't think it'd be a bad idea to send people that direction!) Seraphimblade 14:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that Wikipedia isn't just a collection of facts album name, group, and track lists, for example.  I wouldn't have any objection to creating album or even track redirects back to the group when the ablum or track doesn't rate an article.  Rklawton 14:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point there, and I think we've got to mention the central guideline one way or the other. Why couldn't we do both, though? Mention WP:V and WP:RS, and also make clear that this is just intended to be a list of things that probably pass the central guideline, not a list of things that are acceptable even if they don't pass WP:N. Seraphimblade 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Guy, is the spirit of this longstanding and informed consensus about objective criteria regarding the notability of indie bands reflected in your creative application of it [here], where you've nominated an article for deletion on the basis of criteria for which there is no consensus (e.g., # of myspace friends, no javascript running in your browser)?--Jeandjinni 14:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting wars

message: I feel like the examples of NASA logo, Jordanhill railway station, and Pokemon are getting us off the subject.  Name some  musician/ensembles or composer/lyricists that are notable under WP:MUSIC and yet might not meet the primary criterion as stated at WP:N.  I feel that WP:MUSIC criteria should now be explicit as to when/how/why/if exceptions to WP:N need be made.  My view is that albums by notable artists are a reasonable exception, but the artists themselves should probably be able to meet WP:N in nearly all cases. -MrFizyx 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My favorite example are members of the Elephant Six Collective.  Arguably one of the more noteworthy independent rock collectives of the late 1990s, most, if not all, of their acts are "notable", although many of them aren't going to garnish much in the way of media attention, especially if they're involved in other more well-known bands.  The Gerbils struggle to meet this standard, although Neutral Milk Hotel doesn't, even though they share members.  The Essex Green doesn't have a problem, but The Sixth Great Lake most likely does.  I haven't done as much hard research into these the way I have some of the other examples I've brought up, but the point is that a) they are "notable," and b) they don't meet the new criteria.  We shouldn't have to make exceptions when the old version served us well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This search appears to indicate there are plenty of sources available... Addhoc 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the collective, sure, absolutely.  For the individual bands, not as much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then the standard wiki procedure would be to redirect the individual bands to the collective article, if they are not notable sufficiently on their own. Stirling Newberry 18:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that we should be specific about when an exception should be made, but also about how-which, in 99.9% of cases like Jeff brings up, would be "Create redirects and merge as necessary to an umbrella article until and unless enough sources are available for individual ones." It should be a very, very rare case that an article that doesn't pass WP:N is allowed, and any argument for those rare cases could simply be made by an individual's reasoning on the basis of WP:IAR, which would lead to the appropriate level of evaluation and scrutiny. What we shouldn't be saying is "Sufficient secondary sources are required unless the subject is a pro athlete, or had a gold record, or is listed on a stock index, or received a webcomic award, or it's a Pokemon character, or a high school, or...". If we're going to carve out exceptions, that raises a very important question: How do we carve out exceptions for some things but not others while avoiding systemic bias? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But redirects and merges aren't helpful, neither is having to rely on IAR when we're completely capable of making a useful guideline.  It's probably not as rare as you think to have an article that doesn't meet WP:N, because it's so absurdly strict. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All Music Guide entries for The Gerbils, Neutral Milk Hotel, The Essex Green, and The Sixth Great Lake provide a starting off point for articles on the individual bands.  Surely someone with knowledge of the genre can locate another article or two on each. -MrFizyx 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Sixth Great Lake" for example has reviews in several on-line publications (PopMattersFakeJazzSplendidZine). Shouldn't doing the "hard research" be part of the process of creating an article?  -MrFizyx 19:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AllMusic is not all that much of anything for a starting point, and traditionally has not conferred "Notability".  Splendid, great, I never would have bothered there, but I didn't think PopMatters would qualify either, given the history. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: History?  I dunno, it seems these would provide enough sources to meet WP:N even if they didn't offer everything you would desire for the article.  This is certianly suggested at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Resources.  Are you saying these are usually devalued in AfD?  I have not seen this. -MrFizyx 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but, to be fair, I haven't been involved in any contentious music-related AfDs, either, so things may have actually adjusted themselves properly since then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  refocus on ''music'' criteria 

message: As these changes were not placed here by the person who reverted them for discussion, I am placing them. I would ask everyone to refrain from allegations of "bad faith", regardless of what side (s)he is on-there has been significant support for this change in many areas, the guideline was changed to this for quite some time, and I don't believe that the person who made them acted in bad faith in any way. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's going further back than what was consenusally agreed to, but he is right that the latest updates are being rammed through, although I don't believe it's in bad faith.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed a central discussion here. I've certainly seen no consensus to remove these changes, many of which are months old, but hopefully discussing them at one place will develop a consensus one way or the other. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should worry about getting the consensus here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted changes for discussion

message: Since we are in edit war I will be blunt. The guidelines a few editors are trying to impose here are complete garbage. They so wrong as to be laughable. A good example of why is the Hatta scandal from classical music. Hatta was a pianist whose career was cut short in the 1970's because of cancer. And yet she released a stream of records on her husbands label, a few well placed critics, including at the Guardian UK, created a cult of her reputation, despite the fact that she did not tour, and no on could verify even that the performances in question had happened. It turns out at that a significant number of the recordings released were plagarized - perhaps the majority since everyone that has been checked has turned out to be plagarized. In some cases rather obviously so.
Under these guidelines, until a couple of weeks ago, Hatta - despite no tours, no airplay and no sales of any significance since the 1970s - would be "teh most important pianist Britain has ever produced".
The reality is that the world of music journalism is rife with conflict of interest, inacccuracy, attempts to create cult status as part of a PR campaign and so on. These guidelines would allow a few well placed music journalists, with some back door payments, to create a "notable" artist without that attending musical accomplishments, and would make what these music journalists say more important than verifiable accomplishments. This is why the original guidelines focused on things that are hard to fake, and if faked can be debunked. Where as the myth of Hatta has been going on for years.
The absolute absurdity of making POV sources - because critics are POV tertiary sources, and not secondary sources - into the standard of notability is hazardous, illogical, irrational, dangerous, unencyclopediac and opens the door to the ability to deliberately manipulate wikipedia by simply working a few people at a cocktail party. 
Decisions on wikipedia must be by verifiable means. We cannot verify critics claims, merely document them if they are some how about someone who has verifiable accomplishment.
Again, these guidelines do not have consensus, they are being revert warred into place, and they sink so far beneath the level of rationality that they are completely unacceptable, nor is there any basis for discussion going forward at the present time.
Stirling Newberry 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hatta Scandal and why the imposed guidelines are errant nonsense, complete foolishness and beneath contempt

message: We currently have:
:Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.[footnote 3]
:...
:Note 3: There are, at present, no precise definitions of a "small", "medium" or "large" country in this context. However, a very limited definition of "small" will generally be used, excluding only a few of the world's smallest countries.
I think the note has become unassociated with the text it refers to, somehow.  Can somebody who knows what it's supposed to be attached to fix it? JulesH 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed to remove Note 3 from the chart item (criterion #1). Note 3 still applies to the touring item (criterion #3), mainly because there still seemed to be no consensus as to what constitutes a notable tour. Dl2000 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hit on any national music chart footnote 

message: So a lot has changed the last few weeks with this guideline, and most notably (heh) the "primary" criterion has changed over at WP:N.  Since there are numerolus disputes both concerning the "primary" criterion and the wording of this guideline here, I think it's worth covering the recent changes:
* The "primary" criterion has changed to the "common" criteron to reduce confusion over the word "primary," and reflect that the criterion is simply shared amongst many guidelines at WP:N.
* The wording has changed from "multiple, independent, non-trivial" to a more concise and descriptive definition: "A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article."
As there is a desire to have the common criterion expand across, in the interests of this and in the interests of gaining consensus, do we want to change our initial wording as well to reflect the "sufficient, independent works" wording?  I think it's more accurate and addresses the concerns of a few editors who worry about the direction this guideline has been heading.  Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should think yes. We ought to change the wording here. I don't have an issue with dropping the "non-trivial" adjective. I also like the flexibility that "common" implies. Moreso than the hierarchical term "primary" it acknowledges the need to reconcile general Notability policies with subject-specific Notability guidelines.--Jeandjinni 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking ahead 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28artists%29#Overlapping_with_similar_guidelines where I raised the issue of whether that proposal should include musicians (by copying parts of this proposal) or should it be limited to fine arts only.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musicians - artists or not? 

message: The WP:BAND says that a notable band or artist has to have 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).
*Change Releasing a record on Major Distributors such as Catapult and CD Baby should be equal to releasing on a Major Label. Why? Some of the indie music industry's most notable artist cannot be included in Wikipedia because of that UNFAIR and RIDICULOUS standard. Indie music is just as notable as Major music. Releasing your own music and having success should be notable. Davidcarter biowriter 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Distributors equal to Major Labels

message: The definition of national chart may need amending.  I think that there is acceptable notability in the Texas Music Charts.  Bands like Randy Rogers, Jack Ingram, Jarrod Birmingham, and Stoney Larue have all made their impact in the Texas Country music scene.  Jarrod's wiki has dissappeared and Stoney's looks on the verge of being removed.  These artists travel the same Texas scene as Kevin Fowler and deserve notability for charting number 1 on the Texas Music Charts.  The Texas Music Charts are compiled by hundreds of stations in Texas and Olkahoma (including Clear Channel) that report to them the number of spins-per-week an artist gets.  What does everyone else think???
Lancemurphy 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jack Ingram & Stoney Larue have articles, while Randy Rogers & Jarrod Birmingham do not (and their logs  don't show a deletion). I checked out the site for the Texas Music Charts, and it covers about 80 stations. The methodology is different (they "retire" songs after 15 weeks at #1); the chart covers only Texas/Red Dirt country music. I'd have no qualms about an assertion of notability using the Texas Music Charts, but I'd guess that such a claim on its own may not prove enough without additional evidence of meeting some other criteria. The big problem I see with the Texas Music Charts wbsite: I couldn't find an archive of past charts. Maybe I'm just missing it, and/or maybe it's in print form in papers or magazines, but if it's not, then that might prohibit effective use of the chart. -- Scientizzle 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Chances are, if they've reached enough importance for multiple showings on a local chart (and a statewide chart really is local), they'd meet another criteria.  I think national is a perfectly reasonable place to draw the line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Charts

message: If a musician was nominated for MOBO award (Music Of Black Origin) but did not win that category, are they worthy of a Wikipedia entry? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tilefish (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of that award.  What is the organization that offers it? -MrFizyx 08:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MOBO Awards. One Night In Hackney303 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the number of nominees are quite few, I think this award could make a partial case for notability (it appears to have national/international recognition).  It would be better, however, if the artist also met one or more other criteria (my impression is that in this case, they probably would). -MrFizyx 07:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * If they are nominated then it should be easy to find multiple non-trivial independent sources.  If such sources canot be found, then they are not notable.  Easy :-) Guy (Help!) 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  They'd be considered "notable," but may not survive an AfD if the sources aren't there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this qualify as notable? 

message: I'm going through dead end pages and came across Surprise, Surprise (Sweet Bird of Paradox), a John Lennon song from the Walls and Bridges album. The bulk of the article is some chick relating how JL wrote this song for her after their first boink. My question is, Does every song on every album by even the most notable musician get its own entry? I can see this anecdote possibly being a trivia entry on the album article, but its own article??? Thnx -killing sparrows 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I replaced the article with a redirect to Walls and Bridges.  Lets see whether or not someone decides to reverse this. -MrFizyx 08:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your welcome.  I also copied the source link on "Surprise, Surprise" into the Walls... album page, there was already mention of the story there.  There has been a proposal on songs at Wikipedia:Notability (songs), but discussion on this seems to have died down a while back. -MrFizyx 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: notability 

message: What about the notability of mixtapes? Some bands seem to produce massive amounts of these, and they don't seem to be considered as part of the official discography (and don't chart either). See e.g. So Seductive (G-Unit Radio Part 12), which was previously deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Seductive (G-Unit Radio Part 12), redeleted as recreated content, but is now "improved" by adding that it is made by a multi-platinum selling rap group... Is this enough to establish notability? I would say no, but more input is welcome. Fram 06:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno.  At first glance it looks like an archive of some DJ's weekly radio show.  The All Music Guide does catalog some of these mix tapes (Parts 1-5 and 19), but doesn't review any of them and only provides the track list for one or two.  I'd have to look into this some more.  Does anyone write about mix tapes? -MrFizyx 06:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also 6 being sold in iTunes Music. Spellcast 09:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are correct to a point.  The album guideline does indicate notable artist -> notable albums, and G-Unit certianly appear to be notable.  However, what if there are no reliable sources that even bother to list things like So Seductive as part of their body of work?  Then I would say that the mix tapes don't necessarily have the same standing as studio albums and may fall under general criteria (e.g. WP:N). -MrFizyx 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixtapes 

message: I was going to nominate Unplugged in Boston for deletion, but I was unsure about it because the band is notable. However, it's just a fan club CD, of which there are few (if any others) articles for on Wikipedia. Plus, it's not even on AMG, so it's not notable enough, right? Adamravenscroft 10:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd lean towards letting it stay if it can be sourced as "only available through the fanclub at this time". If it's a release endorsed by Megadeth themselves, it would probably survive an AfD... — Scientizzle 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan club CDs?

message: Whoever looks at list of collegiate a cappella groups will find substantial precedent for judging those according to different standards from those applied to other musicians.  The reason seems to be that even if they are not notable as musicians, they are nonetheless notable for other reasons: that a cappella groups at a university are included within the particular culture of that university.  In particular, at MIT there is far more interest in music among the students than at nearly all other institutions not devoted primarily to music or to the fine arts.
:
Given the precedent, as seen at list of collegiate a cappella groups, I think it should be mentioned on this policy page that this page is not the ONLY standard by which to judge notability of such groups. Michael Hardy 04:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  College a cappella groups 

message: I think "any national music chart" needs to be better defined. It's not clear what a national music chart is. Since there are no countries (okay, maybe some communist states do) with an e.g. Ministry of Popular Music that compiles its nation's music chart, it's not clear what charts qualify. "Any" would seem to suggest that the definition is fairly broad, but maybe that means "any nation" not "any nationwide chart of a nation".
For example, MuchMusic is a nationwide Canadian music channel. Does its weekly chart qualify as "any national music chart"? Likewise, do the iTunes country-specific charts count? Do genre charts (i.e. U.S. R&B chart) count? Do non-brick-and-mortar-retail charts (e.g. online sales) count? Etc.
If not, how should determining which are the national music chart(s) be done? - 18:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts 

message: Time after time, I see people arguing that some insignificant band is "notable" because they meet one or two of the minor eleven criteria, even though they have absolutely no independent reliable sources reporting on them, which is the central criteria for notability.  I've added the sentence "Though these additional criteria make it more likely that the central criteria is met, by themselves they are not sufficient to establish notability" to the description to avoid this wikilawyering. -- THF 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember a single case where a band's article has been deleted through Afd, despite the band having released 2+ full-length albums on a notable label ("minor" criterion #4), as long as verifiability has not been a problem. Therefore, your change does not seem to reflect current practice and since it does not have consensus here either, I have reverted it. Prolog 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section needs to be rewritten.  If Criterion #4 is, by itself, sufficient, that needs to be stated.  I don't think it is, unless Criteria 4 is rewritten: we have some really insignificant independent labels have one band hit it big, which makes them notable, and then that bootstraps all the non-notable bands that signed with that label to notability retroactively.  That doesn't seem to make sense.  -- THF 14:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor criteria 

message: Since the general notability guideline is central to most sub-pages, someone came up with the idea of creating a centralized template which will be consistent among the permutations from WP:N.  Please see whether we can make this work here.  The text is meant to be fairly generic, but it may make sense to add text following the template for fine tuning, or help us to make the template more applicable if it is not reflecting the consensus for notability.  I certainly didn't get everything that I wanted, but I'm very happy to see the compromises that make this a fairly representive of the attitude of the project.  --Kevin Murray 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General notability guideline template 

message: Seeing how I don't even see a consensus for the non-tagged version as it currently reads, do people want the  tag here, or do we leave it out?  I'm starting the discussion here because the proponents can't be bothered.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has enough source information for a good article, but doesn't meet the "PNC", that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. I agree with not including it. --NE2 13:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Include, at least until someone can provide me a legitimate example of a notable musician or band who doesn't meet the PNC criteria.  Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lind, where a handful of fanboys were able to block a deletion of someone who  can't even land a contract and his self-published record because of the WP:MUSIC ambiguities. -- THF 13:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark Lind seems to make a good example, actually.  I'd say a number of the bands in the Elephant Six Collective may, as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elephant Six satisfies PNC: non-trivial stories by the Boston Globe and Tucson Weekly. I don't see why the non-PNC bands in Elephant Six can't simply be listed in the Elephant Six article. -- THF 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that article gets too long, we should have the option to split them off. --NE2 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The E6 article is the size of two screens.  The only way WP:LENGTH could be implicated was if there were several reliable sources discussing the individual bands--in which case the PNC discussion would also be moot. -- THF 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Include I don't see the problem here. It's a nutshell version of the guideline, it's what most AfDs rely upon, and it's flexible enough: "A notable topic should be the subject..." (rather than "must"). — Scientizzle 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because they don't belong in the E6 article as separate entities. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  This is a debate for WP:N and perhaps Template:pnc. I don't see anything in WP:N that indicates that music articles don't need to meet the WP:N criteria. -- THF 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true.  The template discussion should be for the wording, and whether to include the wording here is a discussion for here.  WP:N is not superior to this guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, WP:N is superior to WP:MUSIC.  All articles have to meet WP:N.  Nothing in WP:N says that music articles are exempted. To the extent PNC is accurate, it belongs on all of the notability subpages. -- THF 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False.  WP:N is not superior, there's no cosnensus for it to be superior, and there's no cosnensus here for it to be superior. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I oppose inclusion of the template.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should Include this improvement. --Dragonfiend 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. And do include that permastub topics should be merged to the parent. Many topics might merit mention, but don't merit an article. That's also true of many albums I see, especially from bands who just barely scrape by notability themselves. Usually those band articles are hurting for content too, everyone would benefit from a merge of album and band, and the album article is basically "Album X was made by Band Y and contains Tracklist Z." Of course, if there are multiple independent reliable sources covering the album (not just the band who made it) it should probably be separate, but there's been a tremendous amount of confusion with "Albums MUST be in separate articles!" Sourcing is indeed a primary guideline. If secondary sources have not yet seen fit to discuss something, we shouldn't either. If they've only seen fit to barely mention something in passing, we barely mention it in the context of a larger article. It's not our place to correct for perceived biases or problems in sources, just to reflect them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: --THF 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Easter Sunday, on a weekend? I don't think so.  Plus, you may want to read the discussion above, where such a wording was rejected earlier - why it's still here, I don't know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, what happens at WP:N does not govern what happens here, especially since they've yet to be bothered to make a case here.  They cannot say "WP:N is the most important guideline" without getting consensus from the other guidelines first.  No one's saying notability should disappear in this discussion - we're saying that an overriding concept may not work, and lacks consensus here.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, the individual sub-pages are not autonomous organizations with hegemony over a division of knowledge.  We are one organization called WP; the measure should be what the broad consensus reflects, in whatever way it is displayed.  Since many topics do not fit neatly into one bucket, it is important that the various rules be consistent in standards and application. --Kevin Murray 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, technically speaking, isn't the broad consensus that subject-specific guidelines are what define notability?  After all, they all have wide support and are guidelines per consensus.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is a stretch.  Many of these sub-pages evolved to address specific issues and without broad support, before an attempt was made to centralize the concept at WP:N.  That they are mentioned at AfD is only a demonstration that they are recognized, not that they are supported.  If your first car was a Yugo, that doesn't mean that you would prefer to drive it today if you now have a superior product in the garage.  --Kevin Murray 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These pages long, long pre-date WP:N as a concept.  At no time was WP:N presented to the individual guidelines as a centralization.  Furthermore, I may be driving a Yugo, but if you've got a Pinto in the garage, I don't know if I'd be willing to switch.  As it stands, WP:N is more like the rusty Ford on cinderblocks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not that we should be judging anything on whether it's "creep"y as opposed to its relative merits, I don't think notability can be simplified.  It's unrealistic to expect, and, again, confuses notability with verifiability.  Besides, is it really less creepy to say "a subject can be notable here, but only if it meets this standard first" as opposed to "this is the standard for notability for this subject?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one sub-guideline inherently presents confusion, it is when they are taken as a whole that the contradictions create problems.  Just having a plethora of rules, creates confusion when an editor who is not well versed in wiki-law tries to determine notability etc.  Do we want to create a wiki-law infrastructure with prosecution, defense, public defenders, and legal scholars?  --Kevin Murray 17:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how it's confusing - we either create a problematic overbearing guideline with no basis in reality, or say "if you're writing about a musician, check notability on musicians to see if the article's subject is suitable."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, these have become CREEPy. Yes, I agree, they once served a useful purpose. But before writing any article, we should always ask "What kind of article can be written about this subject? Something more than a directory entry? Something well-sourced from multiple viewpoints? Something with independent sources that aren't potentially biased or self-interested? Something that can one day go into depth on this subject, even if it's a stub today?" Yes, it is harder to ask those questions. Yes, it means fewer articles. It's still a better set of questions then the mechanical "Did this band have two gold records or go on a national tour?" We define notability as having been noted, to a good degree of depth, by reliable, independent sources. I know you define it differently, Jeff, and I'm surprised to see you of all people ignoring the rules (though that is your right), but here, notability doesn't mean "popular" or "well-known", it means "an in-depth, NPOV, well-sourced article can be written on this subject from independent sourcing." Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what rules I'm ignoring.  One of the things we should ask is "what kind of article can be written.  The other is "Even if I can write this article, is it appropriate."  And vice versa, the two are separate.  We define notability by various benchmarks depending on the subject, similar to how the real world does it.  Around here, notability has never meant what you say it does, and never should, because that's not what notability ultimately is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you define two key aspects, but there should be the hierarchy: (1) is it appropriate?  Followed by (2) what kind of article can be written (i.e., do we have information, can it be verified, does it meet WP policy).  Theoretically, if you can't satisfy 1, then 2 is moot.  However, without an objective mechanism to establish 1, we default to some aspects of 2, to determine whether other authors have already established 1. --Kevin Murray 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you're ignoring the notability guideline itself. (And it was always intended that N should be central and overriding, not just to be something "advisory" and superceded by subject-specific policies.) What we need to do, is put the subject-specifics down to some sort of advisory level (I'm not sure if "essay" would really be appropriate, "historical" might work), where it's clear that they do not in themselves specify what is notable, that only WP:N does that, and that these just offer ideas on subjects likely to meet it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring the notability guideline itself - for one, the consensus for it to be a guideline is quite tenuous, and the actionable wording is in flux.  Beyond that, the guideline points people in these directions, so it's not meant to be overriding and was not created with that in mind.  What we need to do is abandon WP:N as unrealistic and misguided, and I think people are coming around to that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I'm seeing here, I'm not sure how. The vast majority of those here are arguing to strengthen WP:N and make it overriding, not to weaken or abandon it. The subject-specific guidelines were fine for their time, they were good rough approximations. But now we've got something better, that makes a better indicator of whether an article is appropriate or not, and won't result in nearly so much cruft by following it. I do not intend to belittle those who wrote these, for what they are, they're actually a pretty decent guide. But there's a lot of stuff that falls through the cracks both ways, and N fixes that. N also is in line with our core policies of mirror sourcing and of undue weight. If sources write a ton of information on a subject, so do we. If they barely mention it, we barely mention it. If they totally ignore it, we totally ignore it. No subjectivity whatsoever on our part. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest reading above.  Not only was the PNC soundly rejected last time it was forced in, but the current wording wasn't acceptable, either.  Somehow, it snuck back without comment, which is a problem.  We don't have anything better yet, and your use of words like "cruft" indicate a further misunderstanding.  We don't need to beat the dead horse you and I have numerous times before - notability and verifiability are separate concepts which are both important.  WP:N solves no problems, and creates more due to its unrealistic and improper expectations and misunderstandings of the concepts it attempts to define. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that changing the name would be useful, which is why I'm all for changing it to "article inclusion". Unfortunately, that also seems to change the concept of what we should include, and permit directory entries and the like in many cases. If we were to just copy WP:N to WP:AI, change all the wordings of "notability" to "an article should be included only if" or the like, I think we'd reduce the confusion and have a workable inclusion standard. What parts of N do you think are unreasonable, by the way? To me, it looks like the requirement that sourcing be substantial is just an extension of WP:NOT a directory or indiscriminate collection of information, and the requirement that they be independent of the subject just a logical extension of WP:ATT (or WP:RS, depending on your preference there). As to the previous discussion, yes, much of the discussion that happened here was against, but most of it occurring at WT:N was in support. Now, most of it occurring in both places is in support. What more consensus do you want? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the term?  Lipstick on a pig?  The idea that notability is governed solely by sources is the problem.  It's entirely unreasonable, because it misunderstands notability.  Now, most discussion in both places is not support - you cannot discount what went on last month when nothing has changed, and when people don't support an overriding PNC, you have to show that something changed.  That hasn't happened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can most certainly change. There are certainly people who've been involved in past discussions in support that haven't weighed in here either, certainly we can go include Uncle G on the "for" list if we're counting people's previous opinions. However, over the past month, I really have seen a shift in attitude regarding the importance of sourcing. Love it or hate it, WP:ATT did bring that issue to the forefront, and I think a lot of people really did realize "Oh, when they say you gotta source it, that means all the time, every time." So, yes, I do believe there's been a genuine shift in attitudes and priorities, and I think you're seeing that reflected here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To add to the above, there's also been a general change in attitude regarding simplification and consolidation of policy. Currently, our notability guidelines are pretty byzantine ("if it's in this category go look at that, if it's in some other category go look at that, etc...). Especially for newer editors, but even for more experienced ones, it's a lot easier to point to WP:N and say "Well, does enough sourcing exist for a comprehensive article or not?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no clue how you're coming to your conclusions at this point.  Consensus can change, yes, but there's no evidence of it changing here, in terms of what happens with this guideline, and certainly no consensus has emerged regarding the wording at WP:N.  As for a shift in attitude about sourcing, certainly - in terms of verifiability.  Not in terms of establishing notability, however, which is what we're dealing with.  The sourcing attitude is part of a continuing trend regarding information, not notability - notability has only been discussed in that context by the PNC camp.  As for your addition, simplification and consolidation of policy has strong, strong opposition at WP:ATT, judging by the poll.  I don't see any sort of consensus for any change of attitude here.  It may be "easier" to consolodate WP:N, but it doesn't make it right, proper, or realistic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: None of those things have anything to do with notability, however.  You've effectively repeated what everyone agrees with regarding verifiability and attribution, but have yet to discuss what makes those subjects that meet everything you've listed notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget what the dictionary says about "notable".  It's as useless to our Wikipedian purposes as what it says about "verifiable".  We're deciding what should or shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia.  There's little benefit to endless arguments over which word to use to describe this concept.  Friday (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I want to ditch "notability" as much as some others do.  Unfortunately, I'm way in the minority on ditching notability entirely.  I don't see you offering a better alternative, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. By some definitions of "notable", we should include some things here which are not notable, and exclude others which are. I would be all for changing the title of "notability" to a less confusing and ambiguous title, such as "Article inclusion". So, from here, let's forget "notability". We should not include articles on topics for which substantial secondary sourcing does not exist, regardless of whether, by any definition, they are notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that, again, is putting lipstick on a pig.  Changing a flawed guideline's name is still a flawed guideline, you're just calling it something different.  As for what you're saying, it doesn't work - subjects that lack "substantial secondary sourcing" are more than encyclopedic, as has been demonstrated numerous times to you.  We need to get away from expecting sourcing to indicate notability (or the word of your choice) and expecting what we do decide is worthy of inclusion to be sourced.  That's what you're missing here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something being "encyclopedic", as in, appropriate for a tertiary source, depends primarily upon the existence of substantial secondary sources. If such exist, it's suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If not, it's not suitable for inclusion, despite our personal opinions of what should be included. If you think something hasn't been well-covered and deserves to be, suggest an article to your local paper or write a book! But this is not the place to "correct" that, based upon our own ideas of what should be written about. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, notability (or the word of your choice) deals with the appropriateness of the subject.  That doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about.  You're speaking to the choir regarding what you're saying, but not in the scope of this page and WP:N. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Our use of sources helps define the scope of Wikipedia.  We can use the amount of coverage in proper sources to gauge what we should or should not include.  Or, we could invent our own, original notions of what should be includable, but it does us no good at all.  We're bound by what the sources say- this is by design.  It's a pointless waste of time to say "Well, sources SHOULD be covering this because..."  It's outside the scope of Wikipedia to second-guess what the sources SHOULD be paying attention to. Friday (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter accomplishes what notability/etc sets out to accomplish more than what you're saying.  It's not a pointless waste of time to take a look at what we should be covering, but it's also not a waste to say "even though this subject is appropriate for inclusion, we can't have an article yet due to the lack of sources."  Two separate concepts - what's suitable, and sources - different approaches, and a sane result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I could probably go for saying "Well, it would be great to have an article on this someday, but we can't right now, there's not enough sourcing." If we could take out notability entirely, and go to a concept more like that, I'd certainly go for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But here's the problem - not everything that's verifiable to reliable sources is "notable" enough for inclusion.  So how do we separate them out?  That's where these guidelines come in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have WP:NOT for that. Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient. What we really should look at, is "Would it be possible to one day write a GA or FA on this subject, given the amount of source material that exists? If so, would the article's subject be in line with WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and our other core policies?" If the answer to both is "yes", we should have the article, if the answer to either one is "no", we should not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT does not cover all things that are not suitable for inclusion while having the requisite amount of sources.  You shouldn't stgart harping on this GA thing again, it's not workable.  The simple question should be "do we have enough independent material to demonstrate notability."  Stop counting sources, and stop considering what may be, instead focus on what is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it changes the discussion entirely.  Instead of assuming that the only way a subject is "notable" is based on the sources, we accept that a subject can be "notable" even if the sources can't be found.  Instead of making it up as we go along, we reflect reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were a "let's sit around and talk about what we the world should notice" forum, I might agree with you.  But this is an encyclopedia.  What we think the world should notice doesn't really matter here.  It's off-topic.  We just go by what sources have noticed.  Friday (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute.  Because we're an encyclopedia, that discussion is necesssary.  We go by what sources say, and we figure out what subjects are worthy of inclusion through discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we figure out what should be included by looking at sources. If you think something has escaped notice that should be noticed, write to magazines and newspapers. Bring it to their attention. Write a book of your own. But don't try to "correct" that here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to "correct" anything - we know that multiple things make something notable, you're even admitting as such.  The issue is that the sources aren't what constitutes the notability, but the things that they've done.  We've been down this road a million times already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a failure of the guideline at all - the band is notable.  The lack of sources is what's problematic, and even then, no one seemed to be bothered by it.  Regardless, I'm sure some sources can be found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's a great illustration of the failure. A couple trivial sources were found, that article will never go beyond that. We need something to state that a quality article must be possible on a subject, not just an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article can go way beyond that - if the notability is asserted through the sources, trivial or not, we're capable of filling in the gaps through other reliable sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't fill in the gaps. It's the job of those sources to collate and interpret information, not ours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all gap filling is original research, and you know it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Notability is objective, not subjective.  How can a band be notable if it's never been noted? -- THF 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is not objective.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's a legitimate position to take in the abstract, though I disagree with it in the context of Wikipedia because it makes collaborative editing impossible.  The main problem with your position for purposes of this discussion is that "Notability is not objective" expressly contradicts WP:N. -- THF 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's because WP:N is extremely flawed.  There's a reason WP:N lacks any real consensus, and a good argument can be made about it not being a guideline anyway.  Besides, "notability is subjective" doesn't make collaborative editing impossible at all, it simply opens up a better dialogue and forces more opinions and less, some would claim, "lawyering." --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The above illustrates the problem of why we should have one, across the board, standard, rather than "Well this is what makes a band notable, this is what makes a person notable...". Someone in the AfD even admitted to intent to lawyer, and effectively that fans were stacking the vote with ILIKEIT. There was very little discussion of the sources, or the main issue raised-that very little source material exists on the band. That should have been the main focus of the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it shows exactly how a primary criterion is an abject failure - any "notability" guideline that fails to account for notable subjects is poor.  In this case, the band is unquestionably notable by any reasonable standard, yet fails WP:N - the problem, thus, is WP:N. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am.  In the meantime, the wording from WP:N shouldn't be forced here without discussion and consensus.  Even if the PNC wording is "fixed," it still doesn't belong here without discussion and consensus.  Even if I agreed with the PNC, I wouldn't advocate the change here without discussion or consensus.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, I disagree that Wikipedia requires the same debate to be rehashed in multiple forums.  There is an umbrella policy of WP:N that is a guideline per the consensus there.  By using a PNC template, when WP:N changes, PNC can be changed, and several articles under that umbrella are simultaneously fixed.  You can have the last word. -- THF 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNC tag 

message: *For: Minderbinder, Kevin Murray, THF, Seraphimblade, Dragonfiend, Moreschi, Scientizzle
*Against: badlydrawnjeff, NE2
:--THF 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Easter Sunday, on a weekend? I don't think so.  Plus, you may want to read the discussion above, where such a wording was rejected earlier - why it's still here, I don't know. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, what happens at WP:N does not govern what happens here, especially since they've yet to be bothered to make a case here.  They cannot say "WP:N is the most important guideline" without getting consensus from the other guidelines first.  No one's saying notability should disappear in this discussion - we're saying that an overriding concept may not work, and lacks consensus here.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, the individual sub-pages are not autonomous organizations with hegemony over a division of knowledge.  We are one organization called WP; the measure should be what the broad consensus reflects, in whatever way it is displayed.  Since many topics do not fit neatly into one bucket, it is important that the various rules be consistent in standards and application. --Kevin Murray 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, technically speaking, isn't the broad consensus that subject-specific guidelines are what define notability?  After all, they all have wide support and are guidelines per consensus.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is a stretch.  Many of these sub-pages evolved to address specific issues and without broad support, before an attempt was made to centralize the concept at WP:N.  That they are mentioned at AfD is only a demonstration that they are recognized, not that they are supported.  If your first car was a Yugo, that doesn't mean that you would prefer to drive it today if you now have a superior product in the garage.  --Kevin Murray 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These pages long, long pre-date WP:N as a concept.  At no time was WP:N presented to the individual guidelines as a centralization.  Furthermore, I may be driving a Yugo, but if you've got a Pinto in the garage, I don't know if I'd be willing to switch.  As it stands, WP:N is more like the rusty Ford on cinderblocks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not that we should be judging anything on whether it's "creep"y as opposed to its relative merits, I don't think notability can be simplified.  It's unrealistic to expect, and, again, confuses notability with verifiability.  Besides, is it really less creepy to say "a subject can be notable here, but only if it meets this standard first" as opposed to "this is the standard for notability for this subject?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one sub-guideline inherently presents confusion, it is when they are taken as a whole that the contradictions create problems.  Just having a plethora of rules, creates confusion when an editor who is not well versed in wiki-law tries to determine notability etc.  Do we want to create a wiki-law infrastructure with prosecution, defense, public defenders, and legal scholars?  --Kevin Murray 17:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how it's confusing - we either create a problematic overbearing guideline with no basis in reality, or say "if you're writing about a musician, check notability on musicians to see if the article's subject is suitable."  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, these have become CREEPy. Yes, I agree, they once served a useful purpose. But before writing any article, we should always ask "What kind of article can be written about this subject? Something more than a directory entry? Something well-sourced from multiple viewpoints? Something with independent sources that aren't potentially biased or self-interested? Something that can one day go into depth on this subject, even if it's a stub today?" Yes, it is harder to ask those questions. Yes, it means fewer articles. It's still a better set of questions then the mechanical "Did this band have two gold records or go on a national tour?" We define notability as having been noted, to a good degree of depth, by reliable, independent sources. I know you define it differently, Jeff, and I'm surprised to see you of all people ignoring the rules (though that is your right), but here, notability doesn't mean "popular" or "well-known", it means "an in-depth, NPOV, well-sourced article can be written on this subject from independent sourcing." Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what rules I'm ignoring.  One of the things we should ask is "what kind of article can be written.  The other is "Even if I can write this article, is it appropriate."  And vice versa, the two are separate.  We define notability by various benchmarks depending on the subject, similar to how the real world does it.  Around here, notability has never meant what you say it does, and never should, because that's not what notability ultimately is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that you define two key aspects, but there should be the hierarchy: (1) is it appropriate?  Followed by (2) what kind of article can be written (i.e., do we have information, can it be verified, does it meet WP policy).  Theoretically, if you can't satisfy 1, then 2 is moot.  However, without an objective mechanism to establish 1, we default to some aspects of 2, to determine whether other authors have already established 1. --Kevin Murray 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you're ignoring the notability guideline itself. (And it was always intended that N should be central and overriding, not just to be something "advisory" and superceded by subject-specific policies.) What we need to do, is put the subject-specifics down to some sort of advisory level (I'm not sure if "essay" would really be appropriate, "historical" might work), where it's clear that they do not in themselves specify what is notable, that only WP:N does that, and that these just offer ideas on subjects likely to meet it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring the notability guideline itself - for one, the consensus for it to be a guideline is quite tenuous, and the actionable wording is in flux.  Beyond that, the guideline points people in these directions, so it's not meant to be overriding and was not created with that in mind.  What we need to do is abandon WP:N as unrealistic and misguided, and I think people are coming around to that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I'm seeing here, I'm not sure how. The vast majority of those here are arguing to strengthen WP:N and make it overriding, not to weaken or abandon it. The subject-specific guidelines were fine for their time, they were good rough approximations. But now we've got something better, that makes a better indicator of whether an article is appropriate or not, and won't result in nearly so much cruft by following it. I do not intend to belittle those who wrote these, for what they are, they're actually a pretty decent guide. But there's a lot of stuff that falls through the cracks both ways, and N fixes that. N also is in line with our core policies of mirror sourcing and of undue weight. If sources write a ton of information on a subject, so do we. If they barely mention it, we barely mention it. If they totally ignore it, we totally ignore it. No subjectivity whatsoever on our part. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest reading above.  Not only was the PNC soundly rejected last time it was forced in, but the current wording wasn't acceptable, either.  Somehow, it snuck back without comment, which is a problem.  We don't have anything better yet, and your use of words like "cruft" indicate a further misunderstanding.  We don't need to beat the dead horse you and I have numerous times before - notability and verifiability are separate concepts which are both important.  WP:N solves no problems, and creates more due to its unrealistic and improper expectations and misunderstandings of the concepts it attempts to define. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that changing the name would be useful, which is why I'm all for changing it to "article inclusion". Unfortunately, that also seems to change the concept of what we should include, and permit directory entries and the like in many cases. If we were to just copy WP:N to WP:AI, change all the wordings of "notability" to "an article should be included only if" or the like, I think we'd reduce the confusion and have a workable inclusion standard. What parts of N do you think are unreasonable, by the way? To me, it looks like the requirement that sourcing be substantial is just an extension of WP:NOT a directory or indiscriminate collection of information, and the requirement that they be independent of the subject just a logical extension of WP:ATT (or WP:RS, depending on your preference there). As to the previous discussion, yes, much of the discussion that happened here was against, but most of it occurring at WT:N was in support. Now, most of it occurring in both places is in support. What more consensus do you want? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the term?  Lipstick on a pig?  The idea that notability is governed solely by sources is the problem.  It's entirely unreasonable, because it misunderstands notability.  Now, most discussion in both places is not support - you cannot discount what went on last month when nothing has changed, and when people don't support an overriding PNC, you have to show that something changed.  That hasn't happened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can most certainly change. There are certainly people who've been involved in past discussions in support that haven't weighed in here either, certainly we can go include Uncle G on the "for" list if we're counting people's previous opinions. However, over the past month, I really have seen a shift in attitude regarding the importance of sourcing. Love it or hate it, WP:ATT did bring that issue to the forefront, and I think a lot of people really did realize "Oh, when they say you gotta source it, that means all the time, every time." So, yes, I do believe there's been a genuine shift in attitudes and priorities, and I think you're seeing that reflected here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To add to the above, there's also been a general change in attitude regarding simplification and consolidation of policy. Currently, our notability guidelines are pretty byzantine ("if it's in this category go look at that, if it's in some other category go look at that, etc...). Especially for newer editors, but even for more experienced ones, it's a lot easier to point to WP:N and say "Well, does enough sourcing exist for a comprehensive article or not?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no clue how you're coming to your conclusions at this point.  Consensus can change, yes, but there's no evidence of it changing here, in terms of what happens with this guideline, and certainly no consensus has emerged regarding the wording at WP:N.  As for a shift in attitude about sourcing, certainly - in terms of verifiability.  Not in terms of establishing notability, however, which is what we're dealing with.  The sourcing attitude is part of a continuing trend regarding information, not notability - notability has only been discussed in that context by the PNC camp.  As for your addition, simplification and consolidation of policy has strong, strong opposition at WP:ATT, judging by the poll.  I don't see any sort of consensus for any change of attitude here.  It may be "easier" to consolodate WP:N, but it doesn't make it right, proper, or realistic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: None of those things have anything to do with notability, however.  You've effectively repeated what everyone agrees with regarding verifiability and attribution, but have yet to discuss what makes those subjects that meet everything you've listed notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget what the dictionary says about "notable".  It's as useless to our Wikipedian purposes as what it says about "verifiable".  We're deciding what should or shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia.  There's little benefit to endless arguments over which word to use to describe this concept.  Friday (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I want to ditch "notability" as much as some others do.  Unfortunately, I'm way in the minority on ditching notability entirely.  I don't see you offering a better alternative, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. By some definitions of "notable", we should include some things here which are not notable, and exclude others which are. I would be all for changing the title of "notability" to a less confusing and ambiguous title, such as "Article inclusion". So, from here, let's forget "notability". We should not include articles on topics for which substantial secondary sourcing does not exist, regardless of whether, by any definition, they are notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that, again, is putting lipstick on a pig.  Changing a flawed guideline's name is still a flawed guideline, you're just calling it something different.  As for what you're saying, it doesn't work - subjects that lack "substantial secondary sourcing" are more than encyclopedic, as has been demonstrated numerous times to you.  We need to get away from expecting sourcing to indicate notability (or the word of your choice) and expecting what we do decide is worthy of inclusion to be sourced.  That's what you're missing here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something being "encyclopedic", as in, appropriate for a tertiary source, depends primarily upon the existence of substantial secondary sources. If such exist, it's suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If not, it's not suitable for inclusion, despite our personal opinions of what should be included. If you think something hasn't been well-covered and deserves to be, suggest an article to your local paper or write a book! But this is not the place to "correct" that, based upon our own ideas of what should be written about. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, notability (or the word of your choice) deals with the appropriateness of the subject.  That doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about.  You're speaking to the choir regarding what you're saying, but not in the scope of this page and WP:N. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Our use of sources helps define the scope of Wikipedia.  We can use the amount of coverage in proper sources to gauge what we should or should not include.  Or, we could invent our own, original notions of what should be includable, but it does us no good at all.  We're bound by what the sources say- this is by design.  It's a pointless waste of time to say "Well, sources SHOULD be covering this because..."  It's outside the scope of Wikipedia to second-guess what the sources SHOULD be paying attention to. Friday (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter accomplishes what notability/etc sets out to accomplish more than what you're saying.  It's not a pointless waste of time to take a look at what we should be covering, but it's also not a waste to say "even though this subject is appropriate for inclusion, we can't have an article yet due to the lack of sources."  Two separate concepts - what's suitable, and sources - different approaches, and a sane result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I could probably go for saying "Well, it would be great to have an article on this someday, but we can't right now, there's not enough sourcing." If we could take out notability entirely, and go to a concept more like that, I'd certainly go for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But here's the problem - not everything that's verifiable to reliable sources is "notable" enough for inclusion.  So how do we separate them out?  That's where these guidelines come in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have WP:NOT for that. Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient. What we really should look at, is "Would it be possible to one day write a GA or FA on this subject, given the amount of source material that exists? If so, would the article's subject be in line with WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and our other core policies?" If the answer to both is "yes", we should have the article, if the answer to either one is "no", we should not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT does not cover all things that are not suitable for inclusion while having the requisite amount of sources.  You shouldn't stgart harping on this GA thing again, it's not workable.  The simple question should be "do we have enough independent material to demonstrate notability."  Stop counting sources, and stop considering what may be, instead focus on what is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it changes the discussion entirely.  Instead of assuming that the only way a subject is "notable" is based on the sources, we accept that a subject can be "notable" even if the sources can't be found.  Instead of making it up as we go along, we reflect reality. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were a "let's sit around and talk about what we the world should notice" forum, I might agree with you.  But this is an encyclopedia.  What we think the world should notice doesn't really matter here.  It's off-topic.  We just go by what sources have noticed.  Friday (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute.  Because we're an encyclopedia, that discussion is necesssary.  We go by what sources say, and we figure out what subjects are worthy of inclusion through discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we figure out what should be included by looking at sources. If you think something has escaped notice that should be noticed, write to magazines and newspapers. Bring it to their attention. Write a book of your own. But don't try to "correct" that here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to "correct" anything - we know that multiple things make something notable, you're even admitting as such.  The issue is that the sources aren't what constitutes the notability, but the things that they've done.  We've been down this road a million times already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: For a wonderful example of notability creep from the failure to have PNC here, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Give Up the Ghost.  There are no reliable sources referencing this band, which has broken up, but because it released two obscure records on an obscure and marginally notable independent label, fans used WP:MUSIC to vote for keeping a crufty article. -- THF 20:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a failure of the guideline at all - the band is notable.  The lack of sources is what's problematic, and even then, no one seemed to be bothered by it.  Regardless, I'm sure some sources can be found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's a great illustration of the failure. A couple trivial sources were found, that article will never go beyond that. We need something to state that a quality article must be possible on a subject, not just an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the article can go way beyond that - if the notability is asserted through the sources, trivial or not, we're capable of filling in the gaps through other reliable sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't fill in the gaps. It's the job of those sources to collate and interpret information, not ours. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all gap filling is original research, and you know it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Notability is objective, not subjective.  How can a band be notable if it's never been noted? -- THF 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is not objective.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's a legitimate position to take in the abstract, though I disagree with it in the context of Wikipedia because it makes collaborative editing impossible.  The main problem with your position for purposes of this discussion is that "Notability is not objective" expressly contradicts WP:N. -- THF 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's because WP:N is extremely flawed.  There's a reason WP:N lacks any real consensus, and a good argument can be made about it not being a guideline anyway.  Besides, "notability is subjective" doesn't make collaborative editing impossible at all, it simply opens up a better dialogue and forces more opinions and less, some would claim, "lawyering." --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The above illustrates the problem of why we should have one, across the board, standard, rather than "Well this is what makes a band notable, this is what makes a person notable...". Someone in the AfD even admitted to intent to lawyer, and effectively that fans were stacking the vote with ILIKEIT. There was very little discussion of the sources, or the main issue raised-that very little source material exists on the band. That should have been the main focus of the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it shows exactly how a primary criterion is an abject failure - any "notability" guideline that fails to account for notable subjects is poor.  In this case, the band is unquestionably notable by any reasonable standard, yet fails WP:N - the problem, thus, is WP:N. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability creep

message: Jeff: if WP:N is the problem, you need to address these objections there, rather than create a guerrilla movement in the mountains where few admins tread.  Here, we're trying to apply WP:N in good faith, and that would seem to necessitate the inclusion of PNC.  Your objection to the PNC inclusion seems to be based on the idiosyncratic view that WP:N doesn't count.  If you fix WP:N, then PNC will fix itself, and there won't be a problem with its inclusion. -- THF 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am.  In the meantime, the wording from WP:N shouldn't be forced here without discussion and consensus.  Even if the PNC wording is "fixed," it still doesn't belong here without discussion and consensus.  Even if I agreed with the PNC, I wouldn't advocate the change here without discussion or consensus.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, I disagree that Wikipedia requires the same debate to be rehashed in multiple forums.  There is an umbrella policy of WP:N that is a guideline per the consensus there.  By using a PNC template, when WP:N changes, PNC can be changed, and several articles under that umbrella are simultaneously fixed.  You can have the last word. -- THF 21:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong place for the debate

message: I have fully protected this page for 48 hours due to edit warring and to allow further discussion to take place. This page is a guidline on wikipedia and edit warring on guidlines is not the way to go about things. I have absolutely no opinion on the matter, but please discuss rather than act Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was probably going to request this anyway.  If you'd submit an opinion on the matter, it might help resolve the conflict.  Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to submit an opinion on that matter just yet, but if all parties agree, I will take a look after the protection expires and make my opinion on what the consensus has come to about what to do Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair.  Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not that we should be counting heads, but I doubt these people have changed their minds given the lack of new evidence of this being necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sure don't see any decision coming from that discussion.  What I see is a lot of questioning of various standards to no conclusion, with the bulk of the discussion being two men's opinion.  I'd suggest contacting some of these editors to join the current conversation. --Kevin Murray 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you don't.  The discussion seems clear that the PNC is not what people want. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I should note that a headcount of seven-against-two is not automagically a consensus. I would suggest seeking broader input on this (WP:RFC, WP:VP). I should also note that this is in fact our oldest notability guideline except for WP:BIO, so it is fair to say that its original wording is well-accepted. >Radiant< 09:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Acceptance is not the same as preference.  In the absence of quality, we often settle for mediocrity.   WP policy should remain dynamic since we remain in the early stages of our evolution.  It is premature to claim precedence of individual guidelines over a centralized infrastructure, based on chronology. In the evolution of societies, local laws generally predated national laws, but rarely do they now retain primacy.   Promoting continuity is a stride toward an enduring organization. --Kevin Murray 14:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please read again. I did not say anywhere that I claim precedence of individual guidelines over a centralized infrastructure. Instead, I said that a 7-2 headcount is not a consensus, and that I suggest wider input. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the PNC template doesn't belong here.  Consensus at this page is to have a number of different ways to judge consensus for musicians and music-related articles, with sources being one of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This segment of the notability infrastructure does not exist in a vacuum.  The scheme of order should mesh, with continuity as a key component to compatibility. --Kevin Murray 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't.  It exists as it always has, referring to the subject matter in which it describes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion is not over its existence, but over compatibility with the overall notability infrastructure.  "Always has" is an invalid argument in a fledgling process. --Kevin Murray 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's no problem, as there are no compatibility issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, so do you want to add the pnc template, or should I? --Kevin Murray 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I meant there's no compatibility issues without the PNC template.  Only when you add it are there issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with just about everything, except that I see no pressing need for a "primary" crierion here.  Of course, if people decide otherwise through discussion, I can't logically stand in the way.  This guideline is really one of the better formed subject-specific ones out there, and it sucks to see it being blown apart like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the guideline as written now, I see absolutely no reason to bend the wording around to accommodate {[tl|pnc}}.  The guideline very clearly is in synch with the primary criterion, and explains things clearly.  Mangojuicetalk 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the wording here somewhat lacks consensus, too - elevating one criterion over the others was rejected during the previous discussion, and nothing has been indicated that the consensus has changed as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: *For: Minderbinder, Kevin Murray, THF, Seraphimblade, Dragonfiend, Moreschi, Scientizzle
*Against: badlydrawnjeff, NE2, MangoJuice
Section added by --Kevin Murray 18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that we should be counting heads, but I doubt these people have changed their minds given the lack of new evidence of this being necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sure don't see any decision coming from that discussion.  What I see is a lot of questioning of various standards to no conclusion, with the bulk of the discussion being two men's opinion.  I'd suggest contacting some of these editors to join the current conversation. --Kevin Murray 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you don't.  The discussion seems clear that the PNC is not what people want. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I should note that a headcount of seven-against-two is not automagically a consensus. I would suggest seeking broader input on this (WP:RFC, WP:VP). I should also note that this is in fact our oldest notability guideline except for WP:BIO, so it is fair to say that its original wording is well-accepted. >Radiant< 09:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Acceptance is not the same as preference.  In the absence of quality, we often settle for mediocrity.   WP policy should remain dynamic since we remain in the early stages of our evolution.  It is premature to claim precedence of individual guidelines over a centralized infrastructure, based on chronology. In the evolution of societies, local laws generally predated national laws, but rarely do they now retain primacy.   Promoting continuity is a stride toward an enduring organization. --Kevin Murray 14:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please read again. I did not say anywhere that I claim precedence of individual guidelines over a centralized infrastructure. Instead, I said that a 7-2 headcount is not a consensus, and that I suggest wider input. >Radiant< 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus Evaluation - Including the PNC template here

message: The following was adapted from what has been at BIO and ORG for some time, and was based on the early March protected version of WP:N:
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
Could this satisfy the concerns of the consensus builders?  If not, could we fine tune this to address the pertinent concerns? --Kevin Murray 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the PNC template doesn't belong here.  Consensus at this page is to have a number of different ways to judge consensus for musicians and music-related articles, with sources being one of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This segment of the notability infrastructure does not exist in a vacuum.  The scheme of order should mesh, with continuity as a key component to compatibility. --Kevin Murray 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't.  It exists as it always has, referring to the subject matter in which it describes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion is not over its existence, but over compatibility with the overall notability infrastructure.  "Always has" is an invalid argument in a fledgling process. --Kevin Murray 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's no problem, as there are no compatibility issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, so do you want to add the pnc template, or should I? --Kevin Murray 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I meant there's no compatibility issues without the PNC template.  Only when you add it are there issues. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative text for PNC template

message: I am opposed to the installation of .  I must agree with Mangojuice's statement elsewhere that "this is an exceptionally poor idea".  The suggestion that our various subject-specific criteria are all to be subject to a paragraph edited in some obscure template is nonsense.  If you desire a change in the music notability guideline, be willing to fight about it here on this page.
For the record, I support the application of something like the "primary criterion" to musicians and ensembles, but must insist that we maintain the essence of our current album guideline.  And I absolutely do not support such a change in template form.
I notice that participants at WT:N have been extended an invitation to come to this page and join in the "test case" debate here (see WT:N#Template or not? - test case at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)).  Have you considered posting similar invitations on the talk pages for Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs?  You are proposing a change that may have dramatic consequences for many of the editors involved and you may find that the views of editors who create, organize, and improve music articles offer a different perspective than the administrative types that lie awake at night thinking about the wording of WP:XYZ.  -MrFizyx 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with just about everything, except that I see no pressing need for a "primary" crierion here.  Of course, if people decide otherwise through discussion, I can't logically stand in the way.  This guideline is really one of the better formed subject-specific ones out there, and it sucks to see it being blown apart like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the guideline as written now, I see absolutely no reason to bend the wording around to accommodate {[tl|pnc}}.  The guideline very clearly is in synch with the primary criterion, and explains things clearly.  Mangojuicetalk 14:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the wording here somewhat lacks consensus, too - elevating one criterion over the others was rejected during the previous discussion, and nothing has been indicated that the consensus has changed as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no consensus for a templated policy 

message: Jeff's latest edit, adding a tag, is a good compromise.  Can we agree to discuss this at WP:N?  The consensus reached there whether WP:N is the top page in a hierarchy, or instead something less than that, will moot any discussion here. -- THF 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible resolution

message: This song by default has been nominated for deletion for being non-notable. Please weigh in at the discussion page. Thank you for helping in this matter. Killswitch Engage 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Memory Will Never Die 

message: As a hypothetical, what do people think about the notability of Blood for Blood, an obscure twelve-year-old local punk band that has never had a notable record contract? -- THF 14:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although a terribly written article, I can confirm that they are not "a twelve-year old punk band" and there are quite a few references out there which at least hints at above average level of notability: . Victory Records is a pretty large independent album label, and they have a few albums on there... hang on a minute, this isn't an AfD is it? Bubba hotep 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Formed in 1995, it is 2007, perhaps my math was off when I said twelve-year-old. THF 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you may have a point. Only on that, though. :) Bubba hotep 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not an AfD.  I'm just trying to divine the BDJ standard of notability when there isn't the objective measure of "noted by independent reliable sources." THF 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply looked at this guideline.  From the looks of things, nothing in the article seems to explain how it meets WP:MUSIC.  If this were an AfD, I'd probably do some more research for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right. If I didn't have prior knowledge of this band (and a fair few of their CDs in my collection), I probably would have deleted it, or at least swung into motion the process of deletion, by now. It probably would have ended up at AfD, and it may well have been saved quite unanimously. I think that's where the real consensus of notability is gauged – out in "the field" at AfD. OK, so you could say that people commenting there are referring to this guideline as their rationale so it matters what it states, but there is a fair amount of interpretation going on there as well. The thing is, the people who frequent AfD (more specifically, category M of AfD) probably don't even know this talk page exists. Bubba hotep 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can they not know this talk-page exists?  Every AfD nomination mentions WP:MUSIC, and all sorts of non-notable bands' articles get saved by wikilawyering claims that they barely met one out of thirteen criteria because they have two albums with a non-notable independent label that had one band under its umbrella that became marginally notable as a one-hit wonder.  Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lind, who doesn't even have a record contract, saved without a single independent reliable source available entirely because of wikilawyering and WP:ILIKEIT. // THF 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I wouldn't have voted keep there - there's nothing to indicate it meets WP:MUSIC.  Mistakes are made, you know - why didn't you take the closure to deletion review? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it's right (for exactly the reason you just stated), but is does seem to be a bit of a consensus. There are more people who participate in cat M AfDs than there are participating on this talk page for a change to the guideline. When I said, "don't even know this talk page exists", maybe it should have been "choose not to acknowledge its existence", or "avoid like the plague". Bubba hotep 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And hypothetically, I would have closed that AfD as delete (for Lind, anyway) and weathered the shitstorm at DRV – which might not have happened actually. :) Bubba hotep 21:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone else wants to take it to WP:DRV, I'll support it, but until 21:18 today, I didn't have any reason to believe that that would change the result.  (Plus, I have an admin or two on Wikipedia gunning for my head because of my job, so when it comes to anything that might possibly be considered a disruptive edit, I'm going to play it cleaner than Caesar's wife, especially for trivia like this.) THF 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Blood for Blood]] 

message: A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed policy change at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]]

message: ... third time's the charm. C'mon folks, all the people involved here should know better; talk page / concensus / unprot. - Alison ☺ 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven edits in five days constitutes a need for protection?  This is starting to get absurd.  Regardless, all I'm concerned about is consensus, so if there's some new consensus out there, I look forward to seeing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, yes. It's been repeatedly protected and unprotected and each time, it starts on up again. Something's not right here ... - Alison ☺ 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want to know the answer to that?  d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, this time, I've got to agree with Jeff. (You got to know that when the person whose version it's on is objecting to protection, there's a problem...). Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had time to keep up, but why exactly are you claiming there is consensus for inserting a WP:N overide into each sub-section of this guideline.  Next time Jeff reverts you, feel free to count me as the "one more person" who objects. -MrFizyx 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, then we'll hold off on the change for now, and discuss it instead! That's always just fine, of course. In the interest of discussion, might you state why you object? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected yet again 

message: I modified the current text and format for purposes of discussion at and posted it at: Wikipedia:Notability (music)/rewrite.  The idea is to achieve the goal of incorporating the style and structure of BIO, and remove the chatty essay sections, to make this more clear and actionable.  Thoughts?  --Kevin Murray 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely unacceptable from start to finish.  Orders everything incorrectly, fails to address notability, and is probably worse than the PNC versions tried to force through before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how you can say primary sources can be used as long as they're verifiable. It seems to me that primary sources, by nature, are pretty difficult to be verifiable. You might want to reconsider wording. Rockstar (T/C) 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some primary sources are quite verifiable as opposed to primary research which is not. --Kevin Murray 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Jeff, can you offer some positive feedback with a touch less hostility.  Maybe you could suggest how the order changed?  While I injected the PNC (roughly) from BIO, the order of mention is the same as the protected version.  Other than the PNC issue is it that odious? --Kevin Murray 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  And WP:BIO is a poor example, as there's no consensus for its current structure anyway.  It's completely odious from top to bottom, and has nothing redeeming.  I see no need to sugar coat it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We might save the sugar between us, but can we be polite?  I sure want to try. --Kevin Murray 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply have no clue how you can see how the discussions have gone over the last two or three weeks, and then think that the rewrite version you put up there has any basis in reality, to be blunt.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, can we ignore the PNC issue for a minute?  What is so odious about the other aspects of the structure?  You are critical without offering constructive examples.  --Kevin Murray 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we can't ignore it because your rewrite tosses it right back in there.  It elevates the whole thing above the other parts, as if one thing creates notability more than another. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Generally, a musician or group is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia if there has been significant coverage of the subject from reliable sources that are independent of the subject and verifiable.  If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by sources is not generally sufficient to establish notability; however, many lesser sources can cummulatively demonstrate notability. --Kevin Murray 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is any pnc based text. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So am I understanding that the PNC principle should not apply at all to people in the field of music? --Kevin Murray 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no pnc principle.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, I'm trying really hard to engage you in constructive dialog, and include you in a non-combative solution, but you just keep picking at the language of my comments etc.  Do you want to find a solution or just complain? --Kevin Murray 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's constructive about digging up the same tired thing that doesn't work?  How many times are you going to try and push this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What am I pushing?  I'm trying to find a middle ground here to reconcile your position with the position of the majority of participants here and you are trying to make it a personal issue.  I assume that you have no interest in other than combative rhetoric, so you really don't have anything to say other than disrupting the conversation and keeping it off-point.  Sad! --Kevin Murray 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What middle ground do you think you're actually staking right now?  Keep in mind that there's certainly no evidence of a majority or consensus on this issue for your position, and you then try to push it off topic with your accusations of making it a personal issue.  Is this the new tactic?  Because if we want to make this a personal issue, we can.  I'd rather try to nip a thrice-failed idea in the bud and move on already.  Up to you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: First, the "test" at BIO is only there due to protection after months of edit warring.  It by no means has consensus and is a poor example.  PROF and PORNBIO are both sub-cats to BIO, so they don't work the same way this does.  So you're completely using the wrong examples.  Secondly, you're still stuck on the PNC-style guideline.  It doesn't work.  It has no consensus.  It stuck in one place without any issues - it's DOA.  This has nothing to do with my alleged rejection of notability - I fully accept that's how we work here for the time being, but you keep pushing these dead examples.  If you want to start fresh or neutral, do it - don't keep trotting this same crap out and expect a new result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does the protected version of this page satisfy you? --Kevin Murray 23:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it reflects consensus and provides a decent balance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why should criterion #1 under Criteria for musicians and ensembles not apply to the other types of musicians, composers etc.? --Kevin Murray 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question.  It does apply, as does everything underneath it - musicians, etc are notable if they meet any of these things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe that the current format suggests that.  Composers have a separate section and numbered criteria as does the "other" category.  I don't see crtierion #1 under the first section applying to either "composers" or "other" as the lists are presented. That is among the issues I'm trying to address. --Kevin Murray 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I follow you now.  Yes, songwriters and composers need the different criteria.  Perhaps moving #1 down there will help you out a little bit, though, not that it actually becomes more important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is part of what Seraphim was trying to do in the version prior to the protected one, copy the message from #1 to all of the sections.  Rather than being redundant I thought it would be better to have that type of message above and thus common to them all.  A further step would be to have a list of what applies to all musicians, followed by what is specific to each group only.  Let me see if I can get that to work at the example page. --Kevin Murray 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no need to continue the confusion of a "general criterion for all" and "special cases," which still implies that one is worth more than another, regardless of the language.  What's currently here is fine, and we can just move/duplicate a few things if need be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, we might have to agree to disagree here on a few points.  Let's see if others think that there is any value in my proposal.  Thanks for spending the time with me on this.  A bit rocky from both sides on some stuff, but you bring out some very good points.  --Kevin Murray 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Labels are corporations/organizations.  The same issues that plague all other corporations plague those, but WP:CORP is too locked up to bother getting any traction.  Beyond that, the only music labels that would be affected by a switch would be indie labels, as the main labels undoubtedly meet any standard and the indie labels generally gain it when their artists do.  I haven't encountered a notable indie label being removed yet, let's put it that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I figured that was the answer, and I realize that it really only applies to indie labels. But it would just be nice if there was some sort of clause like "Has released at least two albums by at least one band that is otherwise notable," similar to criteria #6 of WP:MUSIC, because that info isn't covered by WP:CORP. Rockstar (T/C) 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Notability (music)/rewrite]] potentially a fresh start