Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 4

message: How and when does work as a session musician (whether in the studio or on tour) confer notability?  Certainly, some session musicians are notable for their session work alone--but what threshold should we apply?  If someone plays in the pit band for a notable Broadway production (and has his name on the program), or receives an album credit for session work (but is not part of the band), or tours with a notable band... is this notable?  --EngineerScotty 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not really possible to set a guideline - if they're notable, it should be proven by the existence of independent, reliable sources.  Without that, I'd say session musicians can be assumed to be un-notable. Tuf-Kat 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To dig a bit further.  Would a simple credit on an album cover, theatre playbill, or a motion picture's end credits qualify, or are you referring to an independent source, such as a critic's opinion, where the session musician is specifically mentioned (other than noting his/her presense at the recording session or performance)?  I would think the latter; otherwise anybody who ever played with any notable band might be able to claim notability.  --EngineerScotty 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand your reasoning here.  Why would they not be "notable"? --Tony Sidaway 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, why would they not be notable?  Just because a musician has done little or no solo work, does not mean they are not incredibly talented.  I agree with needing reliable sources, i.e. album/movie credits, playbills, etc., and with that, makes them notable enough for me as well.  Cricket02 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not, and can not, include biographical articles on the basis of who's talented.  The way we determine significance for entertainers is by the press they're getting.  Someone might put out a record that gets reviewed by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and many other major publications.  This is a pretty solid indicator of significance even if the reviews say the record stinks. It's all about coverage in good sources.  Friday (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Session musicians 

message: I added a disclaimer that touring acts should at least headline their national tour. It doesn't really establish notability if you drive around in a van but no local club gives you top billing. Getting top billing internationally is usually much harder, so I left it out of the text. Please feel free to comment. ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like that part either, because as you say sometimes a "national tour" is just guys spending a lot of time driving around.  Any number of insignificant bands play over a wide geographic area.  Does anyone object to simplifying this and instead of "international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country,[1]" just saying something like "major tour"?  Saying what does or doesn't qualify is still a matter of judgment, of course.  I don't think headlining is that important- a supporting act on a major tour is generally a bigger band than the headliner of the "let's drive around in Gary's car" tour. Friday (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an edit to try to make the language less absolute, and changed it to "major tour".  I'm not sure we can or should come up with an exact definition for that.  Friday (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No it's clearly not an argument for exclusion, as the bands still have 11 other criteria they can fulfill. But if a band has done nothing but play up and down the coast, it seems insufficient for me. I think "major" captures the "van" bands, but it doesn't capture the "bottom billing" bands. ~ trialsanderrors 17:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (ec) Sure, but you disagree with pretty much any barrier to entry to the encyclopedia.  Most editors don't share that view.  For me, it's all about verifiability- the guidelines are just rules of thumb.  To me, just getting gigs is the bare mimimum to even be a real band.  Surely an encyclopedic band needs more recognition than just getting people to pay them?  I do appreciate the fact that some significant music venues are essentially bars- the Viper Room for example.  Nothing wrong with that.  Albert Einstein had a job, sure, but not everyone gets in the 'pedia just on virtue of having a job.  To me, being in a working band is comparable to having a job.  It's a start, but it's far, far from being an indicator of encyclopedic significance.  That said, if anyone disagrees with my changes, feel free to edit them as needed.  Friday (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's not very fair.  I don't think there should be *no* limitations, but we need to draw the line clearly.  Is there any significant examples you can think of that a band stuck around because the touring requirement wasn't strict enough?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry bout that- wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, it just sounded to me like you were opposing anything that makes it hard for bands to get included.  I don't have specific examples of what you're asking, but my memory tells me we've had bands argue along the lines of "Look, we played over a wide geographic area, therefore it's a national tour, therefore we MUST be kept."  This is bollocks.  Take, for example, a band I know, playing nearly every day this month, from Texas, to California, to Florida, and many places in between.  Sounds like a big deal tour, right?  Well, wrong.  These guys are driving everywhere they can, sometimes lucky to just be breaking even, in an effort to get discovered.  They're all over the internet because they're big self-promoters, but there's no real media coverage here.  We must rely on proper sources to establish what's a major tour or not- otherwise we're just introducing bias in favor of whoever's willing to drive far, not whoever's verifiable.  Friday (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose some sort of line to be drawn, but I do oppose making it harder than it already is, especially when the current guideline, as flawed as I feel it is, seems to be doing well. If that bands is touring and getting gigs and building an audience, I don't really see the problem in including them. The problem with the new wording is that it has become ambiguous - what's a "major" tour? A headlining tour of clubs has less of an audience than opening on an arena tour. A 15 date theater tour or a 40 date bar/club gig series? The original wording was clear enough, and rarely caused problems, I don't see what this solves except raising more questions. I'd prefer it to be "Has done a national tour in a small or medium sized country, a regional tour in a large country, or has toured internationally." It solves the problem of so-called "self-promoters," while drawing a very clear line in the sand as to what is viable, and doesn't need it to be "headlining," as a band's billing is largely decided by the place booking them and not the band themselves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying "The band impressed the editor" should be a criterion, but that a band's billing should not be one, as it is not a useful indicator of notability.  I don't know how it came across that way, but it wasn't my intent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading it again, I wouldn't be opposed to "significant" as opposed to "major."  It would eliminate the "drive into town and find a gig when we get there" type, eliminate the "we played in six dive bars with no cover charge" types, and wouldn't discriminate subjectively against acts that might end up as a support act.  Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Is on the roster of an established booking agency"? That includes billions.com, bseliger.de, but takes out fly-by-nighters (or drive-van-by-nighters...). ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why discriminate against DIY acts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we're looking for tangible criteria here? A band that is notable enough but decides on its own volition to do a DIY tour will come in under some other criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how do we know that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how do we know what? ~ trialsanderrors 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: [Edcon] Not including opening acts in the inclusion criteria is not exclusionary without purpose. Opening acts by experience receive less outside attention than headliners, with few notable exceptions. But the exceptions will automatically come in under "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works". If no one notices how blow-out-of-the-water-good the opening band is we can't include them per Friday. ~ trialsanderrors 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the purpose, though.  The purpose seems only to be exclusionary, and without any apparent reason except to keep more bands out.  Don't harp on the "blow out of the water" thing, it's not what I'm getting at. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I don't see how billing could possibly NOT be a useful indicator- if a band is headlining a major tour, it means that some major sponsors thought they'd make money off of it, presumably owing to the band's popularity.  Sometimes, local bands play opening sets in a few towns on a tour of a major band.  It's an indicator that they're up and coming, but it doesn't mean they're there yet.  But, is it maybe the word "tour" that's the issue here?  Is there something that distinguishes a tour from a set of gigs, or are they the same thing?  To me, just because a band drives around and plays shows hundres of miles apart, doesn't make it a "tour".  Friday (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I think "tour," I think "A predetermined set of gigs/performances over a specific section of time." Thus, if my band, over two weeks, plays every major city from Boston to Phoenix, I've been on a tour. If my band plays three New England towns one weekend, then plays Philly, NY, and NJ the following weekend, and then takes a couple weekends off before playing Cleveland, that's not a "tour." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the difference you're getting at.  Any working band has a predetermined set of gigs at specific times.  Is it just about how often they play?  When I think tour, I think about sponsorship, among other things.  A band gets gigs on their own, but a "tour" is organized and run by somebody else.  Friday (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm just describing it wrong, then.  I don't want to pull an "I know it when I see it" in describing, but many "working" bands do a handful of localish dates in between massive, multi-date tours.  I don't understand what you mean "sponsorship," and many smaller clubs don't deal with booking agencies, as some noted indie bands don't deel with booking agencies, even ones on significant labels.  It's not about how "often" they play, but the design of the schedule - going on a set schedule from place to place, booked ahead of time to fit into a schedule.  Like, take a look at The Reputation - linked there is their prior tour dates over the last 4 years.  If you scroll through their dates, you'll see a difference between their non "tour" appearances - gigs in Chicago, Champaign-Urbana, etc - and their tours, where they start in Chicago, head out to Boston, head south to Atlanta, head west, northwest, Canada, back home.  I don't know how to describe that more clearly, I always figured a "tour" v. "scheduled gigs" was self-evident.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: [edcon] The apparent reason is that the less notable a band is, the less likely it is that the article is written according to policy, and the less likely it is that it is detected. It's WP's long tail problem. I'm also not "harping on it", I thought the line was funny and I don't mind keeping the tone of the discussion light. But I'll scrap it if you're not in a humorous mood. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So because new editors may not be familiar with our standards, we need to tighten them to make it less likely that they'll stick around? It's why I wish we could force people to research before AfD, but that's a different discussion - that's an education issue, not one I think can ever be solved here. And if you were being funny, I apologise for the comment, I get what you're getting at, it's been a rough day, heh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As for Afd behavior, I can only speak for myself, but I'd tend to say "delete" on a well-written, sourced article, if it was about a local band.  Local papers write about local bands all the time, but we don't generally include purely local-interest things, even when verifiable.   Friday (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a band's importance
Since User:TUF-KAT thinks it's a major change and needs consensus, I prefer the wording of assert over rant about, since the latter has a strong uncivil flavor to it. Even and especially guidelines have to assume good faith. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Err, weren't we working on consensus, here on the talk page?  I don't see a reason for the revert, and I don't see anyone saying those edits are a bad idea.  I prefer the rantless version also.  I don't want to just stick stuff back, tho, if there's disagreement.  Does anyone have a reason they don't like the changes?  Specifically, I mean the changes seen here - a couple different edits in a couple places, but they seem like improvements to me.  Friday (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing "rant" is a minor change, which I agree with.  However, you removed "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" which is a *hugely* signficant piece of text, that has been in place from the beginning, and should not be changed.  There are a number of AFDers who have tried to argue that failure to meet criteria like "2 albums" requires deletion, even when they meet another item.  Meeting one item in the list, is generally adequate, and that should continue to be accepted.  Consensus of the original guideline, and all changes, was done with this basic premise.  As each item was added, it was understood, just meeting that one item, could allow an article to be kept (provided it meets all policy, like WP:V, of course).  --Rob 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of those were me in an unrelated edit - sorry for the non-clarity.  I've put "assert" back in, instead of rant for now, and I've started a new section below specifically about the other edit.  Friday (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Apologies -- I thought I was reverting to the version without the "rant".  I agree that that change is minor and beneficial. Tuf-Kat 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headliners vs. support acts

message: badlydrawnjeff, when you say "I can't count the number of opening bands I've seen that I hadn't heard of before, but blew me out of the water, there are way too many" it sounds like you're wanting to include bands on the basis of being a good band.  This something we absolutely connot do here.  We're not here to do original research and cover bands we like- that's what the music press is for.  We're only here to make encyclopedia articles about bands that have already gotten significant coverage by the music press.    Friday (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying "The band impressed the editor" should be a criterion, but that a band's billing should not be one, as it is not a useful indicator of notability.  I don't know how it came across that way, but it wasn't my intent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading it again, I wouldn't be opposed to "significant" as opposed to "major."  It would eliminate the "drive into town and find a gig when we get there" type, eliminate the "we played in six dive bars with no cover charge" types, and wouldn't discriminate subjectively against acts that might end up as a support act.  Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Is on the roster of an established booking agency"? That includes billions.com, bseliger.de, but takes out fly-by-nighters (or drive-van-by-nighters...). ~ trialsanderrors 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why discriminate against DIY acts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we're looking for tangible criteria here? A band that is notable enough but decides on its own volition to do a DIY tour will come in under some other criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how do we know that? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how do we know what? ~ trialsanderrors 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: [Edcon] Not including opening acts in the inclusion criteria is not exclusionary without purpose. Opening acts by experience receive less outside attention than headliners, with few notable exceptions. But the exceptions will automatically come in under "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works". If no one notices how blow-out-of-the-water-good the opening band is we can't include them per Friday. ~ trialsanderrors 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the purpose, though.  The purpose seems only to be exclusionary, and without any apparent reason except to keep more bands out.  Don't harp on the "blow out of the water" thing, it's not what I'm getting at. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I don't see how billing could possibly NOT be a useful indicator- if a band is headlining a major tour, it means that some major sponsors thought they'd make money off of it, presumably owing to the band's popularity.  Sometimes, local bands play opening sets in a few towns on a tour of a major band.  It's an indicator that they're up and coming, but it doesn't mean they're there yet.  But, is it maybe the word "tour" that's the issue here?  Is there something that distinguishes a tour from a set of gigs, or are they the same thing?  To me, just because a band drives around and plays shows hundres of miles apart, doesn't make it a "tour".  Friday (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I think "tour," I think "A predetermined set of gigs/performances over a specific section of time." Thus, if my band, over two weeks, plays every major city from Boston to Phoenix, I've been on a tour. If my band plays three New England towns one weekend, then plays Philly, NY, and NJ the following weekend, and then takes a couple weekends off before playing Cleveland, that's not a "tour." --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the difference you're getting at.  Any working band has a predetermined set of gigs at specific times.  Is it just about how often they play?  When I think tour, I think about sponsorship, among other things.  A band gets gigs on their own, but a "tour" is organized and run by somebody else.  Friday (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm just describing it wrong, then.  I don't want to pull an "I know it when I see it" in describing, but many "working" bands do a handful of localish dates in between massive, multi-date tours.  I don't understand what you mean "sponsorship," and many smaller clubs don't deal with booking agencies, as some noted indie bands don't deel with booking agencies, even ones on significant labels.  It's not about how "often" they play, but the design of the schedule - going on a set schedule from place to place, booked ahead of time to fit into a schedule.  Like, take a look at The Reputation - linked there is their prior tour dates over the last 4 years.  If you scroll through their dates, you'll see a difference between their non "tour" appearances - gigs in Chicago, Champaign-Urbana, etc - and their tours, where they start in Chicago, head out to Boston, head south to Atlanta, head west, northwest, Canada, back home.  I don't know how to describe that more clearly, I always figured a "tour" v. "scheduled gigs" was self-evident.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: [edcon] The apparent reason is that the less notable a band is, the less likely it is that the article is written according to policy, and the less likely it is that it is detected. It's WP's long tail problem. I'm also not "harping on it", I thought the line was funny and I don't mind keeping the tone of the discussion light. But I'll scrap it if you're not in a humorous mood. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So because new editors may not be familiar with our standards, we need to tighten them to make it less likely that they'll stick around? It's why I wish we could force people to research before AfD, but that's a different discussion - that's an education issue, not one I think can ever be solved here. And if you were being funny, I apologise for the comment, I get what you're getting at, it's been a rough day, heh. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As for Afd behavior, I can only speak for myself, but I'd tend to say "delete" on a well-written, sourced article, if it was about a local band.  Local papers write about local bands all the time, but we don't generally include purely local-interest things, even when verifiable.   Friday (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Touring and significance

message: :not enough to make vague claims in the article or rant about a band's importance
Since User:TUF-KAT thinks it's a major change and needs consensus, I prefer the wording of assert over rant about, since the latter has a strong uncivil flavor to it. Even and especially guidelines have to assume good faith. ~ trialsanderrors 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, weren't we working on consensus, here on the talk page?  I don't see a reason for the revert, and I don't see anyone saying those edits are a bad idea.  I prefer the rantless version also.  I don't want to just stick stuff back, tho, if there's disagreement.  Does anyone have a reason they don't like the changes?  Specifically, I mean the changes seen here - a couple different edits in a couple places, but they seem like improvements to me.  Friday (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing "rant" is a minor change, which I agree with.  However, you removed "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" which is a *hugely* signficant piece of text, that has been in place from the beginning, and should not be changed.  There are a number of AFDers who have tried to argue that failure to meet criteria like "2 albums" requires deletion, even when they meet another item.  Meeting one item in the list, is generally adequate, and that should continue to be accepted.  Consensus of the original guideline, and all changes, was done with this basic premise.  As each item was added, it was understood, just meeting that one item, could allow an article to be kept (provided it meets all policy, like WP:V, of course).  --Rob 23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of those were me in an unrelated edit - sorry for the non-clarity.  I've put "assert" back in, instead of rant for now, and I've started a new section below specifically about the other edit.  Friday (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Apologies -- I thought I was reverting to the version without the "rant".  I agree that that change is minor and beneficial. Tuf-Kat 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rant vs. Assert

message: I made a change from "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" to "may be considered notable based on the following criteria".  I think it's a good change because we absolutely don't want to give the impression that these are hard and fast rules.  I want people to understand that if there's disagreement and an article ends up at Afd, each case is different and editors will apply their own judgment.  The change was reverted, but I think it should go back in.  Thoughts?  Friday (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see from the above that the original idea is that meeting any single one is meant to be enough on its own.  Which would make my suggested change a different meaning.  However I don't see that this is how guidelines really work- people don't stick to the letter of the guideline in Afd discussion or closure.  Friday (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly we frequently keep articles for meeting just one item, and this should be retained.  I can't recall the last time a band with two albums on a major label was deleted?  Generally, if bands clearly meet one item, they are kept, even if it's not verified they meet others.  If they barely meet one, and fail all else, they might be deleted.  Also, keep in mind, we've always had the wording "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ".  So, it was already sufficiently clear, individual editors have discretion.  --Rob 00:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that part makes it clear, but it's a bit contradictory with the part I wanted to change, isn't it?  A band that really meets one of these will also tend to be verifiable by multiple independant, significant sources. IMO, that is why they do (and should) get kept at Afd.  Friday (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, the thing is they may be covered non-trivially in multiple sources, but that hasn't yet been added to the article.  If somebody makes an article on a band with two major albums on a major label, its silly to delete it, because nobody has yet bothered to add all the independent media attention.  If somebody's won a Grammy (or equal award), there's obviously ample press coverage, but maybe nobody wishes to add that right now.  So, we should simply demand a reliable source prove the single notability claim, but not necessarily discuss it in great depth.  Stubs aren't supposed to be full articles, but merely the seed of a future complete article.   --Rob 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes sending a poor article on a perfectly viable subject to AfD is beneficial because it gives them their 15 minutes in the spotlight. I have much more problems with unencyclopedic articles than unencyclopedic subjects. The more notable a subject is the more poorly it reflects on WP if it's shoddily written. ~ trialsanderrors 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with you. If a subject which is notable enough, is poorly written, it is better to delete it from Wikipedia for the time being. Of course, if an article is written in an outstanding manner and style, even if it is not that notable, the article in question deserves to be kept in Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "is notable if" 

message: I ask because of the tag that just got added.  It seems like, to me, that there's no real consensus to make any change, and no one's talked about it in almost two months.  Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is still in dispute. Just because people were getting tired of having the discussion does not mean their opinions changed. Andrew Levine 01:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this still in dispute?

message: Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Boyd (musician) there's currently a discussion as to whether or not the Native American Music Awards qualify as a "major award", and so whether winning one of the awards is enough to justify inclusion under the guidelines on this page. I'm somewhat undecided myself (though leaning towards the belief that the Nammys are insufficiently high profile or comprehensive to qualify as major) so I figured it might be useful to get some feedback here, and maybe see if there's any criteria that could be developed to help settle similar debates in the future. --Daduzi talk 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that policy should change to "Has won a notable music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award.", rather than attempt to define "major". If an award is considered notable enough for Wikipedia, its winners by extension should also be considered notable, whether or not the award is "major". We could arguably consider the award's nominees/finalists notable, too. Dl2000 02:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholeheartedly agree with this change.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that would be ideal; an award show could be notable for reasons other than the merit of its awards (novelty value or a scandal, say). There's also the problems that the mere existence of a Wikipedia page doesn't necessarily mean an award is sufficiently notable for inclusion (some may not be but haven't yet been challenged on AfD), and that there's not yet any real guidelines as to what makes an award sufficiently notable, or even any proposed guidelines (as far as I'm aware). In other words, instead of having to define "major" in relation to awards we'd have to define "notable", which could be just as difficult. --Daduzi talk 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about American Idol, the Euro-band one, or even MTV Fight Klub? -- Mikeblas 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a purely personal, subjective and easily dismissed basis I'd say American Idol would probably count as a major award on the basis of media coverage (though it could perhaps be better classed as a competition rather than an award, and this is to no way endorse the quality of the "music" produced) and if by the Euro-band one you mean the Eurovision Song Contest then, yes, that would definitely be major (huge TV coverage across, though again it's debatable whether it's an award). I have no idea what MTV Fight Klub is (or rather I had no idea until I read the article, now I have very little idea) so I can't really comment. Thinking about it I guess the criteria I'm basically using to make my own personal choice is to what extent the award ceremony and, perhaps more importantly, the winner gains major media coverage (by which I mean a prominent item on national television news or large (1/2 a page bare minimum) feature article in a major newspaper). Again, it's just my own criteria so I don't know how persuasive others would find it, and perhaps some form of allowance would have to be made for awards that have long standing and high prestige within a certain musical genre but don't garner mass media attention (the Gramophone Awards for instance). --Daduzi talk 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What constitutes a "major award"

message: Currently, the unwritten standard is that if a musician or band is notable, they typically get articles.  With very few exceptions, discussions at AfD have reflected this as well.  Thus, to bring this in line with how we've been operating, I propose adding a line to this as follows:
* Albums of bands are generally considered notable if the artists who produce them meet the above guideline.
Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno if this guideline should address this, but I frequently see album articles being created that aren't much use- they're just a track listing and maybe a cover picture.  I don't tend to do anything about these, but my opinion is that if that's all we have, it should be merged into the main article, or possibly a discography article if it becomes too long.  Some albums unquestionably need their own articles - Kind of Blue for example.  I guess all I'm saying is that my preference is for actual encyclopedia articles, not just lists, and I assume pretty much everyone shares the same preference.  I would apply a similiar standard to singles- merge them elsewhere unless there's enough to be said about them to make an actual article. Friday (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in my mind, they're no different than any other stubs, and the albums wikiproject has done a great job in terms of getting chronology out there and providing minimal starting points.  My intent is simply to have the guideline reflect what overall consensus has been noting already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be careful going down that line, just because something is how things are typically done doesn't necessarily mean it reflects consensus in the strictest sense of the word (it may just be a few individuals doing it and nobody challenging it). I also think it's generally a bad idea to have notability of one thing depend on the notabality of something else (an album may be notable for reasons other than who made it, equally a band may be notable for reasons other than their recordings).--Daduzi talk 07:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't know how I missed this reply.  See, I think it does reflect general consensus - it's rare that an album by a notable band is not kept at AfD, and there's an extremely successful Wikiproject that works at albums.  Are authors notable, but not their books?  Are directors notable, but not their movies?  Are playwrights notable, but not their plays?  It seems like a no-brainer on this end, am I missing something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding consensus, I'm always a bit wary of declaring consensus on the basis of practice because I've seen cases of things getting promoted to guideline status simply because nobody's really paid attention to them. I tend to favour overt consensus (ie through RfC or straw polls) over implicit consensus, but I can see the argument that that can be too bureaucratic so I'm not going to push it. On the subject of notablitiy, however, I do think that though in the majority of cases it is true that if a band is notable their albums are, I can see that there could be potential exceptions. A band may have made the news for reasons entirely unrelated to their music and their albums may have been completely ignored by the press. Look at the criteria listed here, there's 12 of them but only one relates to albums (with another one relating to singles). Though unlikely, it's still entirely possible that a notable band could release non-notable albums (equally a notable album could be released by a non-notable band or even anonymously, though that's even less likely), so it would probably be better to set separate criteria for albums (a mimimum chart position or a certain number of reviews in the major music/mainstream press, say). --Daduzi talk 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, instead of running in circles over it with you, I suppose, I'm not quite seeing how a band can be notable, yet its work not be.  Whether something gets press attention isn't the be-all end-all of nobility, I suppose, but I think we'd be hard pressed to find a "notable" band that didn't have some attention sent to its album.  I dunno, I didn't expect to see any opposition to this to begin with, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm thinking more of the bands at the borderline of notability than the White Stripes or Libertines of this world. I could easily forsee a situation where a band scrapes through on one of the criteria on here, then fans start adding their albums as soon as they appear even though they've gained zero press or any notice at all beyond a small circle. I guess I'm just a tad cynical in that I assume any possible loophole will be exploited at some point in AfD, even if no particular instances spring to mind. --Daduzi talk 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add, as an example of a (relatively well known) band who are notable but whose albums aren't necessarily so what about The Brian Jonestown Massacre? --Daduzi talk 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why aren't their albums "notable?"  I have a feeling as to why you brought them into it as an example, but I'm curious as to your rationale in this case, as it's a decent example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the case of BJM while their (or more specifically Anton Newcombe's) musical ability is a part of their notability, their relationship with The Dandy Warhols, their influence on later bands, Dig! and their ability to self-destruct are as important, if not more important. Add to this the fact that a lot of their albums were self-released,, distributed to a very small number of people, and generated pretty much no press and I guess that's why I'd argue that though the band's notable not every one of their albums is. The lack of press creates another problem, unrelated to notability, in that it makes it very hard to actually write much about the albums without lapsing into original research. --Daduzi talk 12:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that all albums (not all songs, but definitely all albums) by notable groups are notable pretty much by definition.  As per User:Daduzi, how much can be written about them whilst still being verifyable is probably the limiting factor here.  -Ladybirdintheuk 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree. Whilst I think undoubtedly all released regular albums my notable artists are automatically notable, what about very minor or unofficial releases such promos, demo tapes, studio sessions, bootleg albums, EPs, unreleased albums etc? I cannot believe that every compilation created by every notable artist is also automatically notable itself if it had a very limited audience or was not publically released etc. DWaterson 11:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding section for albums 

message: Is there an article about the country song "King of the Road"? I think Randy Travis recorded it, and Boxcar Willie, too. Who wrote it? Who originally recorded it? -- Mikeblas 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Roger Miller.Edison 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "King of the Road"? 

message: Added a historical notability criterion --Shirahadasha 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted due to a lack of prior consensus.  I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but saying a musician is notable if he has "historical importance" doesn't really define notability in a useful way.  "noted by musical historians in reputable publications" doesn't help much since it adds another semi-synonym for notable ("reputable").  Furthermore, it doesn't really seem necessary.  Anything of historical importance is notable - this guideline is meant for articles where it's not clear if that is the case. Tuf-Kat 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this change hurt anything- it only reflects what's already being done.  I'm not sure  it's helpful to automatically revert a reasonable change simply because it wasn't discussed ahead of time.  Friday (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a widely used guideline that potentially impacts thousands of articles.  That makes it inappropriate to make substantial changes without prior discussion.  This is not a reasonable change (which would be a minor rewording, for example), but rather a large change in the guideline's meaning by adding a whole new criterion for notability. Tuf-Kat 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't see it as actually adding a new criterion, just as writing down what's already being done.  As you said yourself, pretty much anything of historical significance (supported by proper sources of course) would already be kept at Afd.  I don't see the harm in having such written into the guideline- the worst you can say about it is that it's unneccessary, but so are some of the other ones.  Friday (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a difference between a musical criterion for notability and a historical one which may be applied to musical topics.  The problem, at least with the current wording, is that is too vague and will only lead to disputes about what qualifies.  It essentially boils down to saying a musician is notable if he's historically notable, which is self-evident, only tangentially relevant here and of little interest to AfD, where few historical performers are ever nominated (I think there are few AfD noms for before the 1990s, much less even farther back). Tuf-Kat 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Notability 

message: Not sure if this is the correct page to propose this.  I noticed that on a lot of pages for various artists that IMDB and MusicBrainz are used as External Links (along with discogs and allmusic.)  Since Rollingstone is an acceptable source for albums, it seems to make sense that it should be a source for artist information.  (After all, IMDB for makes a lot of sense for movies/ actors, etc, not sure how authorative it is for music, IMHO.)  I know that Rollingstone is not always neutral, but they do have some interesting bios written (that are factual and neutral) along with listings for albums, etc.
Just a thought. example: AC/DC
Thanks 66.235.58.156 06:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Resources 

message: Does this include genre based charts? I am interesting in supporting a page for a band that appeared in various 'Indie' (Independent Music) charts in UK music press papers in the late 70's and early 80's. On the one hand, these charts were compiled from the notoriously unreliable sales figures from independent record shops. On the other hand, these charts were published in UK-wide publications such as the New Musical Express, Sounds, and The Melody Maker. What are your views on how 'valid' these charts are?
I only ask this because the definition of notability includes the phrase 'Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country' Does a chart which was printed by a country-wide publication, but was not a general (perhaps you prefer 'Top 40' as a more acceptable term?) chart count as valid?
:Personally, for examples such as this, I would count NME charts as being valid - it really is a very narrow set of genres that get into the mainstream charts!  Depending on who you're refering to, I would imagine that they do fulfil a few other criteria - they've probably been on a few UK tours, and come under "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." (and possibly "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.").  -Ladybirdintheuk 08:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone define 'Chart' please? 

message: Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comics), an effort to help editors determine notability in comedy- and humor-related articles, and I adapted it from this guideline. Please take a look at it. Because there is enough overlap, it has been suggested that the comedian and musician aspects of these guidelines be merged into a notability guideline concerning performers or entertainers in general. Please also consider this. Thank you. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 20:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability (comics) 

message: This makes me sad. I added Trio Mocoto twice yesterday. Only to see it removed, without any justification whatsoever. I thought there must be a problem. Today I added it again, with a note on the Talk page. Only to see it removed again. If Trio Mocoto is not notable according to these guidelines, these guidelines need to be changed.
Also, it would be quite polite to actually notify people of the deletion of an article they started. And not only some WP:BAND BS after people create the article 3 times with a note on the Talk page.
Not happy, not amused Guaka 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, this won't really go away.  The article just didn't have enough content in it yet.  Friday (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. the problem isn't that they're not notable accordin to the guidelines- the problem was that nothing in the article explained how they might be significant.  Friday (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the?

message: These guidelines are written primarily for Pop music. It is almost impossible to apply them  to,say, a minor opera of Rossini, since their guide to what music is relevant presumes modern day. Adam Cuerden talk
:Have added a brief note about standard reference texts that should get anything like that in. Adam Cuerden talk 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem?

message: I'm confused about this criterion:"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre."  This seems to apply to essentially any band that has created new music (i.e., isn't just a cover band).  Can someone explain this criterion, and how it ensures notability of a band?  Perhaps I'm not clear on what it means for "melodies, tunes or standards" to be "used in a notable genre". Thanks. Doctormatt 23:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's intended to refer to composers whose name may be extremely obscure, but who wrote a number of important works. For instance, Johann Christoph Pepusch is a dreadfully obscure name, but The Beggar's Opera is quite well-known. Adam Cuerden talk 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability:Others

message: "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)."
This criterion has been introduced since the last time I looked at this. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that leads me to believe that school newspapers (at least college) are not reliable sources, and I've used articles from college newspapers in the past to cite sources without objection. I would either adjust the above criterion to include at least college newspapers or I would remove it entirely. Grandmasterka 08:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A school and a university aare different things. You're reading more into it than it says. Adam Cuerden talk 12:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I think it should be clarified better. (A university is a kind of school.) Comments? Grandmasterka 04:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be easily enough done. how about just adding "(though university newspapers are usually fine)" after it? Adam Cuerden talk 07:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While it seems that there is consensus on this page to accept university newpapers as reliable sources editors in AfD still often find them unreliable or their write-ups to be trivial.  Has this issue been discussed anywhere else? -MrFizyx 08:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of. Should we add a length requirement? Half a page, perhaps, to combat triviality? That doesn't really solve the reliability problem though... Require that the school newspaper have an article? An award? That would make it way too complicated though. Grandmasterka 07:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this is more a matter for WT:RS. Grandmasterka 07:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt that in the debate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad (fourth nomination) that editors were deeming the sources that as trivial either because of length, or the nature of the publication, or the limited geographic coverage of the publications.  The article was fairly well sourced and I count at least four media mentions that as least appear to meet the criteria.  All of these papers were either college papers or free-local weekly papers.  None were dailys and all are distributed only in Phoenix, Arizona area.  Some of the papers do have articles on the 'pedia (Phoenix New Times and the Arizona Republic).  It is clear that the community felt (strongly) that this failed to meet the requirement for press coverage.  While I think it is reasonable for others to feel this way, I don't think this obvious from the criteria here which is no doubt frustrating to editors who feel they are meeting the criteria.  -MrFizyx 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest the first criteria be amended to say: "(an article in a school or university newspaper does not meet the this criteria, but facts from such an article can be used to meet other criteria)." savidan(talk) (e@) 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hestitate to definitively rule in or out university newspapers. They are prone to excessive enthusiasm (both positive and negative) and "creative" quoting, but they do have oversight from both their advisors (not necessarily media professionals) and the university (a point with its own pros and cons). I suggest we treat them like we would anything coming from college (professors, athletes, etc.) — they should not be considered adequate as exclusive sources either for notability or information, but can be used to support this data as a closer source, as long as the information is not obviously biased or inaccurate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commenting on this more than a month after this thread has died, I think that articles in college publications ought to count for something, mainly on their own merits. I know of a band that has something like 6 or 7 quality articles in different college papers, but might not end up getting included if we say NO COLLEGE PAPERS EVER. Grandmasterka 12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with reviving old threads if there's something left to be discussed. However, as to the exclusion of such, I can only say an unequivocal Good. If they haven't had coverage in anything but a college paper yet, they're not yet to the point we should cover them. Seraphimblade 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some (likely trivial) coverage. But you're probably right. Soon, my friend, soon. Grandmasterka 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: WP:MUSIC says a musician or ensemble is notable if they have won or placed in a major music competition.
I wondered if perhaps that could be reviewed and possibly removed. TV shows such as the Idol series (American Idol etc) and The X Factor have singers who get to the final 10 contestants and are then voted off early on, and go back to their normal lives, never to be seen or heard again. I don't believe that makes somebody notable. I can't find any examples at the moment but with series currently airing, I'm expecting articles to be created that possibly shouldn't be. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree on this one.  With those major shows, literally tens of millions of people know their names and become familiar with them.  They absolute confer notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not notable as their contribution to society is nil. Winners of the shows, sure. Someone who's embroiled in public controversy (an affair with a judge, an arrest during the show) and not just something between them and another contestant -- that's arguable. If they go on to get a recording contract after losing anyway? That's back to the regular WP:MUSIC criteria for that new recording career. Otherwise, they're out. I'm all for changing the text to "won a major music competition". -- Mikeblas 00:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Contribution to society" is entirely arbitrary.  I'm very much against any change on this.  Here's an example:  I don't know Idol at all.  I've watched two episodes, tops.  I'm still quite aware of the 15 year old kid they called "Chicken Little," and that's it.  If it can leak down to someone like me who's completely out of touch with most popular culture, you're going to sit there and say he's "not notable" because he didn't make it into the top 6 or whatever?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A positive contribution to society isn't arbitrary; contributing to an art or a science is one thing that helps establish notability. That you've heard of a contestant or two and think, therefore, that reality show contestants are notable enough to be in an encyclopedia isn't a very powerful argument. We won't allow artists just because you, personally, have heard of them. -- Mikeblas 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anybody else like to comment on this? By the way, here is a recent AFD discussion in relation to this topic, and here is another. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That makes no sense whatsoever.  American Idol is far and away the most watched musical competition on television.  Do you see how many votes they get from people calling in?  The line for such shows should obviously be at finalists.  Under your standard, that long haired Constantine fellow wouldn't be noted, nor would the "Chicken Little" kid, and that's really nonsensical.  I don't even watch the show, I couldn't tell you who won the last few go 'rounds, and I know these things. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "contribution to society" argument is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that for most of these people, the only info we have on them relates to what they did on the show.  So, they should be covered in the articles on the show.  If someone goes on to have a career and gets covered by the music press outside the context of the show, that's when it makes sense to think about them having their own articles.  Otherwise these are just flash-in-the-pan articles relevant only for a week.  Do we want to try to maintain biographical articles on living people who were known for a week and then disappeared?  No, we do not.  The game show analogy is apt- just because these game shows are called "reality" shows and last a bit longer doesn't matter.  The host of a gameshow might be notable, but an individual contestant is not.  Friday (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is calling it any sort of "game show."  It's not comparable to Jeopardy or Supermarket Sweep, or even Star Search.  The "only info" is completely false, as these folks get things written about them, and with a little effort, can be fleshed out.  There's no need to contain them in one article, that doesn't make sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Game shows are comparable to other game shows, why wouldn't they be?  Or, maybe this is unimportant.  The two afds mentioned above resulted in merges, which seems the most sensible thing to do when in doubt.  Looking at the content of those articles before the merge, I see 2 good illustrations of why merging is the right thing to do- the only relevant info in the articles was about their performance on the show. Is there an example of a reality-show contestant that had a bio article that you think was a keeper?  Unless there are counterexamples, real life experience supports the "these should be merged" position.  Friday (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not "game shows."  To try and say that Idol is the same as Wheel of Fortune is patently absurd.  WoF doesn't havea  pool of 16 contestents that battle week after week, daily contestents on WoF don't have hundreds of websites made about them, do not generate any fans, are not watched weekly by tens of thousands of people, and generally do not enter the general social consciousness.  The two AfDs ended up in a poor result, and I was disappointed to see such inconsistency, although I'm getting used to it.  Take a look at any reality show contestent.  Hell, take a look at a few of the Project Runway ones currently running - the fact that we're likely to delete them is patently absurd.  Stubs aren't bad things, and we need to realize that.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of "reality television" contestants? 

message: Do we really need "large or medium sized" specified for countries?  I'd think any charting artist would be notable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should get rid of the vague medium/large country qualifier with respect to the charts and gold/platinum certification. Even if a "small" nation had charts and gold record awards, those would represent notability in the national culture (and most "small" countries likely wouldn't have enough of a music industry to have charts and certifications anyway). But the criteria of touring gets messy - for example, would a "national tour" in Vatican City be enough for notability? Dl2000 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think we can trust editors judgement enough to deal with cases like that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of country 

message: Hey, I'm not trying to shake things up here, but these guidelines for determining the "notablility" of a band or group are excessive. I know that it is important to keep the wiki free of "filler" information, but why is it that a local band -one that may be important to 50+ people in a given town- can't have a wikipedia page? As long as the article is well composed, contains useful information, and isn't just a plug or advertisment for themselves, there should be no problem in allowing such group to remain on the wikipedia. In case example (and why I started researching these guidelines), note The Game Genies article. Granted, this is a favorite band of mine, but that aside there is no legitimate reason that such an article can't be allowed. The "notability" of the band depends on where you are (or what you listen to). Music articles should be deleted based on article construction, information, and compliance with non-advertisment rules, not based on what people who have never experienced the music and the band think about a band's notablity. Afacini 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because something is not notable when only 50 people care about it. I mean, half the people I know are important to at least 50 people, and none of them are even CLOSE to deserving a Wikipedia entry. -Amarkov babble 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's extend this a bit more so that Afacini can understand it. There are certain things that Wikipedia is not supposed to be, for the sake of maintenance. Notability means two things: that it can be verified and that a signifigant cross-section of people are interested in it. Who gains from an encyclopedia article on a band that 50 people like? And why stop at 50? 25? 5? 
At that point, any band that can get someone to write a "well-written" article can be in Wikipedia. Even if no one listens to them, or care. Wikipedia should be about KNOWLEDGE, not big masses of totally useless information. There are wiki's that are devoted to music and bands, and there are wiki's that are ENCYCLOPEIDAS. The suggestion you make basically means that the only people who can decide if a band is notable -- that is, if anyone ELSE besides the people who like it have heard of it -- ARE the people who like it. If you can't see the sheer insensability of that then I suggest you spend some time really READING up on what notability is. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 14:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, read User:Uncle_G/On_notability--Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with Afacini. Many bands and musicians are important for particular cultures. I've been interested in African music/musicians for a while, but there's not a chance most of them could get articles: They get almost no coverage in the west. And they focus on live performance rather than recording. It's a completely different culture, which can't really have the same rules applied. "Who gains from an encyclopedia article on a band that 50 people like? And why stop at 50? 500? 5000?" - it is pretty subjective, but I don't think that being in the charts, or having a major record label behind them makes them more worthy. Surely to keep this neutral we should ignore how big the record label is? And consider them on a case-by-case basis, looking at their importance in their own context (ie their own culture, country, region, language, etc...). Not meant to be a flame or anything, just what I think :D Lionfish0 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable or not?

message: I converted the bulleted lists to numbered lists so that individual criteria could be easily referred to by number in, for example, a deletion discussion. Other notability guideline pages such as WP:MUSIC/SONG and WP:CORP have their criteria in numbered lists. TacoDeposit 15:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullets --> numbers 

message: Support after they gain approval Addhoc 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. My understanding is that a record company press release is a primary reference, while a review in a magazine would be a secondary reference. Obviously articles have to comply with notability guidelines in addition to WP:V. Addhoc 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[WP:SINGLE]] and [[WP:LP]] 

message: I gather the basis for WP:LP, and the earlier edit to these criteria are largely based on the statement in WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."  It seems we are trying to use verifiability criteria here to establish (or refute rather) notability.  I have a couple of problems with this.  First, it usually isn't hard to verify that an album has been published.  The album itself is a published record of the track lists, lyrics, and liner notes--all which provide some material for an article.  Second, aren't established record companies reputable, reliable, third-party publishers?  Why need we argue point for point whether each recording in a notable artist's discography deserves space here?
I do think a criteria like WP:LP would be very useful for compilation albums/retrospectives offered by record companies. -MrFizyx 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. My understanding is that a record company press release is a primary reference, while a review in a magazine would be a secondary reference. Obviously articles have to comply with notability guidelines in addition to WP:V. Addhoc 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album criteria 

message: "Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion."
This user has been using this as sole reason for speedy deletion and should be taken to task. --Scottandrewhutchins 06:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few things: Wikipedia does not have firm rules.  Admins use their discretion in deleting, this is unavoidable.  Also, this is not a page for dispute resolution.  If you have a problem with another user's edits, try talking to them on their talk page.  I speedy delete tons of bands too - with the volume of junk coming in, someone has to.   In practice, non-notable bands are slam-dunk cases for deletion at Afd, and many admins go ahead and delete them quickly and quietly without dragging them through a process who's outcome is obvious.  See also WP:SNOW.  Friday (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Fang Aili]] is not following the rules

message: At Wikipedia:Deletion review#DOPAMINE, it's being argued that it's OK to speedy an EP by a band with an article, and it's even being claimed that the articles are "page rank boosting". Is this typical behavior where music is concerned? --NE2 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help requested with [[m-flo]]

message: This guideline pretty much excludes all Indie musicians. There's a clear difference between national though not mainstream artists and local bands. How can we define it though? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girls gone docile (talk • contribs) 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this in general (with some Notable exceptions - in this day and age, I don't see why CD format should be used as an indicator of Notability). Here are two recent (one still ongoing) AfD discussions relevant to the above, where I've asserted as much (N criteria for indie scenes should use a different yardstick, in the same way you would treat obscure, though Notable jazz musicians, or obscure science): [] [] --Jeandjinni 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-indie 

message: Does third bassoon of the Vienna Philharmonic qualify for a bio, based upon being member of a musical ensemble which has toured extensively and has multiple albums, if he/she hasn't done anything on his/her own?  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Members of orchestras

message: Throughout the Wikipedia, we see differentiation and specialization of articles, as localities and regions accumulate sets of articles.  In fact, this is happening with a wide variety of subjects, which is one reason why the Wikipedia has over 1.5 million articles (and is proud of it).  Personally, I can't see why it is necessary to adopt more stringent guidelines for notability for musicians than for other subjects I can think of.  I would also argue that many musicians have local and regional success, and hence would reasonably be included in connection with the local and regional articles I mentioned.  
It's in the spirit of Wikipedia to keep adding articles.  The decision on whether to read the articles should be left to the readers.  The key question is whether the articles are concise, well-written, and well-researched, with verifiable information.  If we have a lot of short articles on musicians, then that's fine.
The Wikipedia does not just appeal to one market.  It appeals to a very wide set of specialized markets.  For this, the more articles, the better.  Who cares if an article appeals only to people in a given locality or region, as long as it is useful to them?  For example, we had a set of articles on the candidates in our municipal elections here in Ottawa, Ontario, including one on Kitchissippi  Ward where I live.  How's that for notability? I can't imagine that those articles would have been useful to anyone outside Ottawa, but they sure were useful here, as I imagine similar articles were useful elsewhere, in other elections.
Likewise for musicians.  There are so many genres and sub-genres of music, and tastes are so differentiated that we need lots and lots of articles.  There is also the question of local, regional, and national cultures.  In my case, for example, my main reason for reading Wikipedia articles is to find out more about new and emerging singers, particularly in Canada.  I happen to have a very strong interest in Canadian culture, and I believe that more people - especially in Canada (but hopefully elsewhere) - should find out more about Canadian music. For our culture, which is always in jeopardy in face of the overwhelming impact of the USA, it’s important for us to support and recognize our new and emerging artists.  
I do not want someone in some other country telling me that articles on Canadian singers do not meet their notability criteria.  In Canada, there are also regional and provincial music scenes, e.g., Montreal, Atlantic Canada, and British Columbia, to name three that I am interested in.  I can absolutely guarantee you that new and emerging singers in those markets would not meet the notability criteria.   But why should that matter for someone outside Canada, or outside the areas I just mentioned?  Why should someone in the USA or elsewhere be proposing the deletion of articles on our musicians?  
In today's world, we need to embrace diversity, and to let localities, regions, and smaller countries write about their own cultures in Wikipedia.  In Canada, we have always had the problem of being overshadowed by the USA in matters of culture (and in everything else).  So just let us have our Wikipedia articles on our own singers, recognizing the fact that in Canada, we are also much more regionalized than in the USA, so local and regional cultures are doubly important here. Don't set up notability criteria that will screen out articles on new and emerging artists across the country.  But the same point holds not only for regions and countries, but also for genres and sub-genres of music.  
There is also the question of what's news and where is the value-added.  Personally, I have limited interest in reading articles about established musicians that easily meet the guidelines proposed here.  That's not news.  I already know about those singers. 
User:JD_Fan 11 December 2006, Ottawa, Canada
:: I have to agree very strongly with JD_Fan. It seems music is much harder to write articles about than other things. World Music in particular seems to be difficult: Smaller record labels, not associated with the RIAA. Often very famous in their own countries, but not famous/heard of in the US/West - where 'notability' is mostly decided it seems.
::I don't see the advantage of deleting articles so quickly. At least wait 6 months to see if they're added to. This whole issue puts me off WP a) Puts me off contributing, and b) I'm often finding the artist I want to find out more about has been deleted before! Lionfish0 11:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here-friggin-here!!! Lawofone 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niche Markets + New and Emerging Artists 

message: According to Wikipedia, one of the rules of notability is as posted: 
Now, there is this band called The Tiny Masters of Today that I am interested in writing about. The band are American, but are mainly popular in Great Britain. Do all these links to various interviews in magazines, such as the New York Times (link), Newsweek link), Drowned in Sound (link), etc make these young musicians notable?
I want to check and make sure it's alright to start a TMOT article firsthand. Fanficgurl 3:33 December 13, 2006 (UTC)
:There's no exact standard on what kind of media coverage is "enough".  The newsweek link is what I would call a good source.  In practice, if what you write is well sourced, there's probably little chance anyone will even want to try to delete it.  Ned Wilbury 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the NY Times and Newsweek mentions, especially given that the Newsweek piece is largely about them, I'd say they would indeed pass notability. Seraphimblade 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I just heard those kids do a performance/interview on the public radio program, Fair Game a few days ago.  You can add this to your sources (see here--includes audio).  My opinion is that they have had enough press coverage to easily meet the criteria. -MrFizyx 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I have created this article to help people who search for official chart positions for songs/albums find them. It contains links to official charts for many countries, but still needs some countries. I think it will be helpful for those who don't know many of those sites and that this will expand many chart tables. I would like to know if it's good (enough) and if so, it can be used on WikiProject page for chart tables and maybe even further than that (:template:Infobox Single/Album and others). -- Luigi-ish 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting resource.  What makes a chart, "official"?  I don't know how to answer your question about it being good enough for this or that use.  Why not explain what you want to do on the related talk pages for the projects/templates?  I don't think the people who happen to read this page have any special authority on these things.  Good luck. -MrFizyx 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Music charts

message: What constitutes notability in for a musician that is part of the minority (i.e., 350 speakers of the language) in a country where that musician's language is not given any airtime? The musician in question (Mikkal Morottaja) is important amongst his own people and amongst the other minorities nearby, but the likelihood he's ever going to be heard by the majority is pretty nil in a country with the likes of Nightwish and HIM when you also consider the fact he raps in a minority language, Inari Sami. Quite frankly, it's pretty frustrating when the notability standards have been created to drive out non-notable musicians and groups in the American and UK markets, but at the same time end up excluding musicians and groups that are not in markets that chart sales (e.g., minority groups in Russia, etc.) unless they have somehow made it out of their home market. Is this what we really want Wikipedia to be like? -Yupik 08:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, we should widen the criteria so that for these types of musicians. Since minority groups do represent significance within a culture, notable musicians within that group should be noted as well. A good example to argue this point would be  Native American musicians. - RiseRobotRise 12:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also agreed. We need to work out a proper definition of culture/subculture for these purposes, to allow examples such as the two above without allowing every "but they're notable to the 5 people in this tiny niche Internet subculture" justification. Perel 12:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Other cultures often have a much more live performance focus in their music, rather than recordings. Unfortunately much of the 'notability' is based on Western news/charts and recordings via a few large record companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lionfish0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Determining notability for music in minority groups

message: I've AFD'd this band article as I believe it falls under the notability bar but looks like we could use some more input - anyone who has a spare few minutes please check out the article and contribute so we can establish consensus. exolon 19:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Multi purpose chemical]]