Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 6

message: I know a recording artist who met the criteria to get a visa for Artist of Extraordinary ability. In order to get this visa she had to meet criteria equal to some of the criteria for notability in music (which include: must hold membership in an organisation that requires outstanding achievement, have had articles featured in professional or major trade publications, or other forms of media of national / international repute, have made noteworthy innovations or contributions in / or to the area of expertise, have his / her articles featured in well-known journals and other popular forms of media, received recognition from organizations, critics, government agencies or other recognized experts in the field, etc). For some reason, her entry continues to be deleted from Wikipedia Music. How does one verify one's notablility? How does one submit supporting documentation to prove that a listing belongs here and is not merely publicity? gruvjunky 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria and Verification

message: I am constantly seeing edit wars on upcoming albums about the album's leaking. There should be something here to clear it up. I'd say that an album's leaking isn't really relevant and encyclopedic. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place you can check to see whether or not an album has leaked. Adamravenscroft 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that leak dates aren't relevant information.  This was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_8#.22This_album_was_leaked.22, but I am unclear on what the final decision was (if there was one). JYi 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaks

message: I've reopened discussion on this; we need something.  Once it's settled, it might be merged here, if that's acceptable. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 17:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to have the discussion here, rather than proposing a new, separate guideline, (i.e. do the "merger" first).  Otherwise it looks alot like WP:CREEP. UnitedStatesian 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no creep involved in a sub-guideline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the proposed guideline a sub-guideline of WP:MUSIC or of WP:N?  It doesn't say (and in fact doesn't say it is a sub-guideline at all) UnitedStatesian 17:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it whatever you want - WP:N has really no further weight than WP:MUSIC does (and, in fact, WP:MUSIC probably has more historic weight).  But no, there's no creep involved in it, and even if there were, the possibility of creepiness is no good reason to oppose something that's necessary. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you missed my point: I am not arguing against adding whatever guidance for songs that is necessary. I am arguing against putting every tiny piece of guidance we need on its own Wikipedia page - different guideline pages for songs, music excluding songs, albums, song verses, movie theme songs, etc., etc., etc.  It is impossible to navigate gudelines, subguidelines, subsubguidelines that are all on different pages.  Frustratedly yours, UnitedStatesian 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you're not the norm in this case, I think.  I apologise if it's frustrating you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, no reason to have so many guidelines.  Friday (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was actually no reason, we likely wouldn't be creating them.  The need for them is why they continually crop up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your circular logic has not addressed my concern.  Why do they need to be on different pages?  What is the reason that this is the norm, and I am not? (I haven't considered "becasue we said so" a good reason since I was 4) UnitedStatesian 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose an argument could be made that that they could be, but it's simply not how we generally handle them.  People come here for information on music acts and groups, not the things they produce. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "what they produce" an integral part of talking about a band (or really anything)? Could you really talk about Nirvana without a discussion of Smells Like Teen Spirit? Led Zeppelin without Stairway to Heaven? How would you write a complete article on a band, without writing about, well, exactly what it is they do? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would certainly depend on the band. Some, like, for instance, Babyshambles, aren't really known for their music, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be covering that part, too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Notability (songs)]] 

message: I am sure there is discussion on this somewhere in the archives, but can someone explain why the albums section seems to contradict WP:NOTINHERITED?  Shouldn't the album need (like everything else in WP) to stand on its own by being the subject of reliable independent secondary sources, like reviews of the album? UnitedStatesian 16:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is with the part you linked to, not with the albums section - notability is often inherited.  If you need to somehow work the two in your mind, however, consider album articles simply subarticles of the artist with better formatting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes, they should need to be covered independently. Otherwise, they should simply be merged into and mentioned in the artist's article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely false historically, operationally, and consensually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So are song articles subarticles of the albmus, with better formatting, and verse articles subarticles of the song articles, with better formatting, etc., etc., etc.?  How is a neo-WP editor like me supposed to know how to draw the line? UnitedStatesian 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In some cases.  To answer your question, though, that's what WP:SONG is trying to figure out.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Albums by major artists are almost guaranteed to get reviewed in lots of places, causing lots of coverage.  However I think albums should generally be mentioned in the discography section of the artist's article rather than having their own.  A great deal of our album "articles" are just cover art and track listings- nothing resembling an encyclopedia article.  If that's all we have, merge.  Friday (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's thankfully not the view held by most people, nor does it really reflect the reality of the situation.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is an uncommon view at all.  A track listing would be seen by many as an "indiscriminate collection of information" and thus better handled in the context of the artist.  Standard practice for dealing with overly detailed sub-articles is merging them into the main article.  Friday (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's simply false.  Sorry, I don't think you've spent much time working on album and book articles if you believe that to be the case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be that school articles rarely got deleted, too. Now they quite frequently come out either "delete" or "merge to district". Consensus can change, and once cruft reaches a critical mass, more and more people will be ready to start cleaning it up. (And there's rather a selection bias there, obviously the people making album articles think they ought to exist! That doesn't mean it's a consensus of all editors, just that particular group.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that there's any evidence of consensus changing on this issue.  I wouldn't worry about "cruft," and I'd refrain from using that terminology in the future, for that matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could call them a spade, I suppose. But terminology aside, there does currently seem to be a good degree of shift toward either merging or deleting such articles, and toward placing a greater emphasis on covering in a main article and splitting out only when necessary, and only when the "child" article stands on its own. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all I'm suggesting- not saying "No, we don't do album articles" but rather deferring moving them to a separate article until the day there's enough content for one.  This is generally how we should approach everything, not just albums.  Friday (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your idea of "enough content" wildly differs from the norm, though, without even addressing the navigational issues.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Enough content" is "enough to justify an article on the album itself as separate from the band who made it". At minimum, there should be more than a track listing and a few sentences' synopsis of sales and the like, which are what most album articles I've seen look like. And what navigational issues? No one said we shouldn't have a redirect, just not an article. We certainly should have a redirect to the band's page when the album is covered there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with stubs.  I know you have this thing against them, but stubs should be expanded, not removed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, permastubs are not stubs. "Permastub" means "A stub that can't be expanded, because the source material's just not there." Stubs are great. Permastubs are not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I can't predict the future, however.  So there's nothing wrong with stubs, or permastubs if they're comprehensive. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that WP:NOTINHERITED is part of an essay (not a policy or guideline) that expresses the opinions of some editors.  The suggestions there are in general pretty good.  WP:MUSIC is a guideline that reflects a consensus (although a rocky one at times) that most albums (specifically, not most individual songs) by notable artists should have coverage and that this coverage is better organized on a separate page from the artist.  Some general reasons for this might be, one, albums themsleves are primary sources with useful data that would clutter an article on an artist, and two, there are many other music encyclopedias organized in this way.  In my own opinion most articles on recent albums of note should also indicate coverage in multiple independent sources (e.g. reviews).  However, it is harder to dig up these sources for many notable albums released prior to the internet era.  If we strictly apply WP:N to material from decades past we end up with holes in our coverage and make groups of articles more difficult to navigate chronologically. -MrFizyx 22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, how about we take out some "automatically notable" stuff, rather than adding yet more? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, whatever. I was just trying to help -- what I proposed is already covered in WP:N, so it's not a contentious addition. I just thought it would be helpful to be placed here, but if you want people to be referred to WP:N if an artist has a page because his albums are notable rather than WP:MUSIC, that's just peaches to me. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 21:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We want to move things closer to reality, not push them further away. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, TV episodes are.  If current policy on TV episodes says otherwise, that needs to be adjusted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the TV episode policy have to be adjusted, why not this one? What makes somethings notable? According to WP:N "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." You seem to be the only editor who believes notability is inherited. According to the philosophy, If and actor is notable, so are his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc. Notability isn't a house it doesn't get inherited. I've seen 5 editors question this policy in this discussion yet only 1 editor saying "it's consensus". --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the TV episode guideline doesn't reflect reality if it thinks individual episodes aren't notable.  Don't pay attention wo WP:N, it's under a massive rewrite at the moment and does not have precedence over individual subject-specific guidelines.  You've got my philosophy wrong, however, and that's part of the problem - understand the philosophy, and you'll come closer to understanding notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a massive debate over episode notability and the main consensus was episodes are NOT notable unless there are "multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic."  Even the album section says that inheriting notability is "controversial", to me that means we need a better consensus if the current one is considered controversial among editors. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! - so can I AfD every one of those 1000 darn Simpsons episode articles now? Really? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can handle the hell editors will put you through for it, go ahead :) But i suggest you take Mel Etitis's advise. When he put up a Disney series for deletion it raise hell, I'd love to see the debate over The Simpsons episodes... --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is all well and good, but probably not accurate.  Perhaps, once other issues are dealt with, that can be revisited. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So should the page be changed to reflect that?Alcemáe T • C 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums? 

message: Seriously, this is silly. Criterion 1 of notability says:
# It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
#* This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following:
#** Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
#** Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
#**An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
That certainly should be a requirement for WP:V, but it should not do anything for notability of the band. My own band was written up in several areas of the press- it's trivially easy to get press coverage if you know the right people, know how to professionally approach them, and so on. In fact, larger indie bands have labels who buy press for their artists (by buying the back page of the mag for a full-page ad and saying "I'll scratch your back....")
Most of the other criteria are sufficient for notability, I think, but the first criterion is a joke, and should only go towards the article's verifiability.  AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you get rid of Criterion 1? 

message: Criterion number 13 should be removed. Remixes of songs quite frequently appear on CD singles, and the criteria does not define "officially released", which leaves much lee-way for non-notable works - such as: someone records a song, has a friend create a remix, and the song is suddenly notable for an entry on Wikipedia. Seems insane. ChrischTalk 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. Some compositions that are in themselves non-notable attract numerous fairly obscure remixes that are rarely more notable than the original version, and may well be less so. (Criteria, by the way, is plural). Adrian M. H. 17:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion 13 

message: :Song is notable if:
:#...has been covered in sufficient independent works. 
:#...is a released single by a notable artist, band or group. 
:#...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart. 
:#...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy groups repertoire. 
:#...has won a significant award or honor.
--Kevin Murray 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to go with your first point, a "well-written and well-referenced" article about a song is certainly going to meet that first criteria.  For #4, it is subjective, but there needs to be a way to make sure we're able to cover things like R.E.M.'s "Country Feedback," as an example.  I suppose it's somewhat redundant to #1 in a way as well, though, but I'm not sure that redundancy is a bad thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yes, that needs a fix. --Kevin Murray 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think #4 should be entirely taken care of by #1. After all, how else are we going to prove it's "been recognized" without providing references in "sufficient independent works"? Also, more personally, I think #2 is no good. Just because it's a released single, for example, doesn't mean you're going to find any external independent references that assert the song's notability. Same for #3 - and the "or significant" part of that seems difficult. So, why not simply accept Wikipedia's general criterion, and say "a song is notable if it has been written about with substance in external independent verifiable references that assert the song's notability"? Keep the "award" sub-criterion, of course, since I'd think even official nomination for an award is an assertion of notability. But the other stuff - why not just match Wikipedia's normal rules so that you're not begging for a showdown with deletionists? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the "with substance" bit I put in, above - I doubt you'll find many long essays on one single song, but you will find people writing in detail about a person's music. Popular huge artists like Beatles or Bob Dylan probably have completely independent works written about them, which probably provide at least a paragraph on a song. That should be substantial enough to back up an article. But, a fan-book written qite obviously by someone who was paid by the band's record company should never be considered a proper source, and neither should a teen mag or any music mag that's been implicated in payola (CMJ, coff coff...). Record reviews also shouldn't be considered substantial enough to demonstrate notability of one song, either. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: #2 and #3, my own personal guideline has always been to argue keep for charted singles.  I don't really think that every single, nor every charted song, needs a separate article.  I've always felt that an uncharted singles can be covered in the discography article/section and charted album tracks can be covered in the album article.  And if there's enough independent material on the song from reliable sources to justify a separate article, then it qualifies under #1 and doesn't need #2 or #3.  Xtifr tälk 06:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly seems like a good idea, you hooked me at the end. Fork out the article after sources are found. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the list is missing an important component.  An album is notable by its association to a specific musician.  A band can be notable if it had a notable musician.  A composer can be notable if it writes for a notable band/group.  I believe that songs can be notable if they are associated with notable alblums.  E.g. the alblum is a Gold/Platinum alblum, then I believe the song is by default notable.Balloonman 21:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorter version (Jeff's)

message: Howdy all. I've just been participating in an AFD discussion about the article Wild In the Country (festival). For me this is a tricky area which lacks currently lacks any sort of notability guideline. Here's the link to the AFD for background info: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild In the Country (festival). In general, how should editors determine notability for music festivals or events? Any ideas? Paxse 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When there is no specific policy/guideline, surely the main policy applies? Generally, there is probably little need for a separate policy for festivals, though a paragraph pertaining to them would not go amiss. This article needs more third-party refs and a rewrite of the second paragraph, but it does appear to have potential for notability based on the acts that have appeared there. It should not be too hard to find good sources (although you won't get any argument from me if you think that the creating editor should have done that in the first place). Adrian M. H. 17:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Adrian. Thanks for the reply. No, I wasn't suggesting a separate policy for festivals or even a solution to that AFD (now closed as keep). The AFD just highlighted a gap in WP:MUSIC for me. I think the topic of music festivals is a tricky one and I'd like to see folks think about it, discuss and try and come up with that paragraph you mentioned through some sort of consensus. Paxse 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably start with a paragraph based on the main notability guideline and see how it develops. Multiple sources, independent of the subject, etc. We probably can't measure it by the acts that are involved; there are some notable festivals, for genres such as folk and jazz, that may have some acts that would be comparatively non-notable.  Adrian M. H. 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that before we start proposing more rules, we shoud determine whether the correct outcome was achieved at the AfD with the current rules.  If there si not a problem then why do we need a solution.  Paxse states that there is a gap.  How? Why? Was Paxse in opposition to the outcome of the AfD? --Kevin Murray 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After reading through the AfD, it appears that the article was transformed through the process from spam to a marginal keep (a side benefit of AfD).  However, very little discussion focused on the concept of notability being demonstrated by third party recognition.  It was more "I think" and "I like" logic.  Paxse did discuss references by comparison to other articles at WP, but it seem that the logic was: this was less trivial than other entries therefore leave it alone.  It does not seem to meet the standard for "significant coverage" per the references given, but I'll bet that it could with some research.  In summary, this is an example of a poor AfD rather than poor rules or a poor topic.  By the way, the conclusion was not keep, but no consensus, a subtle distinction. --Kevin Murray 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Howdy Kevin. To answer your questions. No, I'm not opposing anything much at the moment (War, probably, wine coolers, perhaps) - though I am interested in process at WP and how it works. My logic on the AfD was that notability criteria for music festivals were not currently covered by WP:MUSIC. In the absence of clear guidelines, I'm more inclined to keep a borderline article than delete (like you I'm an inclusionist and prefer to create than destroy :) - and not because there are more trivial articles on WP. Rather than argue about it, I also expanded the article and added some refs before voting to keep. However, given the large and expanding number of articles of various shapes, sizes and potential notability in just one category: Category:British music festivals I thought an extra paragraph here might provide a guideline for editors in the future. This may prevent good faith editors from having their useful articles deleted (this is where the AFD was going when I stepped in). By the way redux, I said the AfD was closed as keep (not the conclusion was keep), which it did (and does) by default when consensus was not reached. Cheers, Paxse 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with most wars, and wine coolers specifically, but have you tried the Hooper's Hooch Brew coolers which are malt based?  A splendid thirst quencher in the summer months.  I agree that some benefit usually comes from clearer guidelines, but when we have too much instruction we get clutter; the benefit must be weighed against the cost.  The US tax code is an example of good intentions gone berserk.  Consider the tragedy of the commons in economics as an analogy to our rules sets; what is good for individual issues becomes overwhelming collectively.  This is my concern.  --Kevin Murray 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hooper's Hooch sounds rather frightening but I'd be willing to try if you're buying - though transporting it to me could be somewhat tricky, I'm several time zones away in Cambodia. I may have to stick to Gin. Good point about too many instructions. Overall, I'm not in favor of instruction creep - better a few clear guidelines (and a few arguments) than 6 pages of subclauses and codicils. Perhaps the case of music festivals could be included as a note to the notable performers guideline - If one or more notable artists perform then the concert/festival may also be notable. Subject to verifiability, appropriate sources etc.Paxse 06:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music festivals 

message: The guideline states that all albums of notable artists are automatically notable. Does this also apply to unreleased albums? If an album has never been released, should there not at least be a reliable reference that establishes existence? (I am thinking of two examples, see here  and here. --B. Wolterding 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming you're talking only about these kinds of leaked bootlegs, and not also upcoming albums. I agree that these albums are, generally, not notable enough to justify having their own articles. My suggestion would be that these articles be merged into the artist's article in the normal way. Adam McMaster 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly true.  You have instances, like The Lillywhite Sessions, where this might not be the case, but The Album Coldplay Scrapped in Favor of XY would be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'd say take it on a case by case basis for these.  The Lillywhite Sessions would certainly appears notable enough, while ones like 15 Songs for You or Britney Spears: The Unreleased aren't.  ShadowHalo 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Basically looks like The Lillywhite Sessions was written about in the press, since the article was sourced, while the other two haven't been written about. That's certainly a good test of notability right there. Of course, depending on what you accept as a source, you could still get 150 articles on Greatful Dead or Jimi Hendrix bootlegs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say Christina Aguilera's 15 Songs For You is notable because over 207,500 people have downloaded it from just ONE source since September 2006  and there are many different sources.  Many fans therefore are getting the album and the Wiki article tells them exactly what it is, where it came from, who is making it available and what songs are included and where they are from originally.
Adw uk 09:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has no non-trivial coverage by third-party reliable sources.  That means that it's not notable.  (And before the issue is raised again, search engines are not sources.)  ShadowHalo 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, not notable unless written about by someone else. I've had some of my own favourite articles get deleted because people argued the topic was "not notable", as there were no press mentions sufficient to persuade the people reading the AfD, so there's a snowball's chance in hell that I'd be in favour of allowing even less notable articles to survive. Gimme an article in reputable press talking about this Christina Aguilera boot, and I'd gladly admit it's notable. But just cos something's been downloaded means jack at Wikipedia nowadays - and to tell you the truth, given some of the articles here, I actually don't dislike that policy too much. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreleased albums 

message: Who changed the language to "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"?  I certainly don't see any consensus to make the notability guideline that broad, and I've regularly argued that Criteria #1 is the only criterion that matters. -- THF 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's traditionally been that way. At least since it was a guideline 2 years ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is more and more coming around to where criterion #1 will indeed be the one that matters, and the rest are advisory only. Quite a few already see it that way-after all, we can't have articles without sources regardless! Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not true.  Criterion 1 has been slowly rejected in nearly every place its been introduced. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * If this is the case, then musicians could be handled just like any other biography, at BIO.  It seems that anyone meeting the criteria beyond #1 would inherently satisfy #1, making the rest true but superfluous.  --Kevin Murray 12:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If #1 is the essential one (and I believe that it is), then we have to decide whether the others need to be mentioned at all and whether they are just advisory or additional to the main criterion. Should musicians be covered solely by BIO, and keep this guideline for their work? That might be simpler. Maybe not simpler, but it might be more suitable. Adrian M. H. 12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, it isn't the essential one for notability.  That's kind of the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I thought we were discussing the criterion that requires multiple third-party sources. Surely that is essential. Adrian M. H. 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not for notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So why is it even listed there? And why do other editors say that it is the key criterion for measuring notability, not just in music, but in any subject matter? Adrian M. H. 13:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't know why other editors assert it.  It's been knocked down nearly everywhere it's been proposed.  But why is it listed here?  Because some people want it to be, really.  Sources don't demonstrate notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Of course sources demonstrate notability.  If something has been noted, then it's notable; if something hasn't been noted, then it isn't.  By tautological definition.  -- THF 15:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Needless to say, there's been plenty of discussion on the merits of that position, here and elsehwere.  It fortunately lacks support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're questioning here.  Notability and verifiability, while both important concepts, are two different things: not everything that's notable is verifiable, not everything that's verifiable is notable.  Often, the two intersect, but generally speaking, the two don't have to - it doesn't and hasn't affected AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what I'm asking? I'm asking whether there is a viable proposed alternative to the current notability guideline. Clearly, it does affect AFD (and all forms of deletion) if the current guideline is inherently wrong, because one of the criteria for deletion is notability. If the definition notability is contested, then how can we make fair decisions? And I am perfectly aware of the difference between notability and verifiability. I am not talking about verifiability. Adrian M. H. 14:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's proposed a viable alternative to this that I'm aware of at this stage, to (hopefully) answer your question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That is all that I was asking for. In that case, we are stuck with what we've got unless and until a better alternative (if it is needed, but that's a separate issue) can be found. We have to have something in place (I suppose). Adrian M. H. 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any ''one'' of the following criteria!?!?!? 

message: The discussion on Sea Slumber Song at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sea_Slumber_Song may be of interest to some of the eds. here. DGG 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: individual songs

message: Is there any guidance on what makes a record label notable enough for inclusion?  For example, Gallium Arsenide (record label) is an indie label, and the article doesn't really cite its importance.  Am I safe enough to request a speedy? - Alex valavanis 10:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidance is at WP:CORP, and it is independent sources.  You are safe to request a speedy if the article does not assert its importance, or to prod.  UnitedStatesian 14:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I'll look into it now. - Alex valavanis 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked this earlier, but why not add a criteria for labels that fits under WP:MUSIC? I realize labels fall under WP:CORP, but in the same way bands fall under the WP:N umbrella, but were separated for more specific notability criteria, so too should labels be separated and made specific for music guidelines. It would be foolish to say that bands, songs, albums, etc. fall under WP:MUSIC but labels don't. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record labels 

message: As I've read in Archive 5 there is some discussion whether point 4 is too easily met or not. I think Rklawton is right. I think point 4 enables wikipedians to create non notable band articles and justify them through WP:MUSIC.
Why? Touring is one of the first things bands do to get attention. A lot of non notable bands have toured in several larger countries, sometimes with a couple of other bands, sold as a ‘‘package’’ to venues. The headliners are notable, but believe me, most of the less known bands playing at such events are not notable at all, they’re just there to get attention from the media, media that is there to see the headliners.
In many cases the whole point of a national tour is to get attention from the media.
To give you an example: tomorrow I’ll be at a heavy metal event. The bands that will play are War from a Harlot's Mouth, Dying Fetus, Ion Dissonance, Through the Eyes of the Dead, Dead to Fall, Cattle Decapitation and Skinless.
Are bands like Through the Eyes of the Dead and War from a Harlot's Mouth notable (yet)? They’ve got (and will get) some media attention so according to WP:MUSIC they are. I'vee been to grindcore events where the following (touring) bands played Cock and Ball Torture, N.C.C., Gronibard, Pigsty, Ahumado Granujo, Cerebral Turbulency, Disgorged Foetus, Sublime Cadaveric Decomposition, Last Days Of Humanity, Cliteater, Rompeprop, notable bands? The majority isn't.
I could compose more lists containing bands like this.
Emmaneul (Talk) 11:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this discussion? No opinions (expect for the discussion in the archives)? Emmaneul (Talk) 17:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that at AfD, this seems to be one of the more contentious (and oft-ignored) criteria.  It also seems incongruous to require two albums but only one tour.  There are musicians and groups that establish notability primarily by touring, but rarely with a single tour.  Xtifr tälk 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree that going on "a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" is far too easy to meet for non-notable bands, especially when the country is small in geographical terms (think countries like Israel).  This criterion needs to be removed, or at least changed to read "numerous" rather than "at least one".--Rise Above The Vile 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that a tour may add to a band's notability, if the tour reaches a large public, or if it leads to substantial press coverage. But "just touring" should not in itself be notable - say, a travelling street musician might not be more notable than a stationary. Oceanh 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touring? 

message: As far as being at the forefront of a genre is concerned, would a band that is the only of its kind be notable? As far as instrumentation goes, I mean. Tomato katsup 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example? <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a band in my area, no guitarist, but two bass guitars, I've never heard of that being done. Would it be considered a notable innovator? Tomato katsup 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's enough really - there may well be another band you aren't familiar with that has done that before.  PUSA are pretty close.  Just using an unusual combination of instruments isn't enough - they need to have some impact on the rest of the world.  I think it would be best to wait for them to meet the other notability criteria before creating an article.  If they're really notable then it's only a matter of time! - Alex valavanis 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *In general, no. Many new bands consider themselves the sole adherent to a novel genre. Most of these are dead wrong. Also, "two bass guitars" is really not a genre. >Radiant< 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * It's been done before; the most notable band here is probably Cop Shoot Cop, though Girls Against Boys had that configuration once.  There are quite a few lesser-known metal bands too. EliminatorJR Talk 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres 

message: Green Andy was deleted as nonnotable musician. the original author recreated it claiming added more references. I am not expert to judge, but it seems that new references are equally not reputable sources. I was the nominator for its deletion, so I don't feel to nominate it again. Since this is de-facto orphan article and it will not be visible by many public soon, I decided to bother this wikipedia page for re-evaluation of the article and possibly more detailed explanation to the contributor. Thank you, Mukadderat 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs to go.  It doesn't satisfy notability criteria, even with references.  Have left a note on the article's talk page - Alex valavanis 08:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And it's gone :) - Alex valavanis 08:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Toasted. If you see such situations in the future, the easiest way to handle it is to tag it with , which will get some admin's attention to toast it. >Radiant< 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed

message: I'm sure I remember reading a guideline once which stated that, apart from exceptional circumstances, individual tours by artists were NN and didn't merit their own article.  Can anyone point me towards it?  Has it been removed? Or did I imagine it? EliminatorJR Talk 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of concert tours 

message: Currently it reads "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show...". To follow proper writing style, when giving examples, just one example is insufficient ("a theme for a network television show"). Two is better, three-plus best. Suggest changing to "e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or movie, inclusion on a compilation album, etc."  Any thoughts? Gekritzl 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is not inherited, anywhere else in Wikipedia. This criterion shouldn't be in WP:BAND. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: work of media that is notable

message: Should they really be listed as a resource?  Their content is basically user-submitted, isn't it?  I've always avoided using them as a source for that reason.--P4k 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discogs.com

message: Tom Smith is a thirteen-time winner of the Pegasus Award, the primary award in the Filk community. However, his article has been put up for deletion, and the nom asserts that filk "represent[s] a very narrow area of interest within fandom", and hence winning the award does not confer notability. So, my question is (which I see has been argued before in the archives), how major is major? If a genre is practiced by enough performers, is its main award notable?--SarekOfVulcan 15:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit after the fact... Not sure how major major needs to be, for awards, but in this case #7 could apply: Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; -Freekee 05:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define "major award" 

message: The album section currently says:
"If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage."
I would like to add, either in the text or as a footnote: "Demo's, mixtapes, bootlegs or promo-only records are in general not notable", since many people make articles for these with the idea that "any album of a notable artist is notable", which is definitely not true for these categories (although there are of course exceptions genre The Black Album (Prince album)). Fram 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Over the past week, I've been proding and AfDing dozens and dozens of mixtapes (I'm trying to clear out all the non-notable ones in :Category:Mixtape albums). They can never expand beyond a track listing. So unless a tape actually is notable with things like sales, certifications, critical reviews etc., they generally don't warrant an article. Spellcast 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrictions on albums section 

message: So I've tried and tried, but cannot find anything that details what makes a member of a band notable enough to deserve an article. I've had people argue against the deletion of articles about seemingly non-notable bands because of the presence of a member of a notable band. But I can't find a guideline or rule. I suppose to be specific, Dave Edwardson, who is the bass player for a notable band (Neurosis (band)), and has played with other notable acts, has been tagged questioning the notability of the subject. Are there guidelines for this? What do people think about this specific case? Murderbike 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still an issue.  Does it have enough support to add a line?  There's been a number of AfDs for NN-members of notable bands, and the lack of clarity is causing friction. Torc2 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I definetly think this needs a guideline. One of the issues is about differentiating between an article about a band which mentions members and a specific article about the a band member as a individual. Obviously individuals in bands are going to get mentioned in reliable sources if the band has notability, but does this meet WP:BIO criteria. My belief is that a band member only needs a seperate article is a) The info is too large to go in the main band article, b) If there is relevant verified info that is not related to the band eg. solo actions or c) that there are reliable articles, specifically about the subject. What should be considered is that merging articles is not a hinderance to a user. If the person is primarily known for memership of a notable band, then it is likely that a redirect would not be confusing. --neonwhite  user page talk 20:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of band members 

message: I have proposed that the notability subguidelines be deprecated with the salient points being merged into the main notability guideline and the remaining subguidelines merged & deprecated to essay status. Please join the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Merge proposal. Vassyana 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: I just come to know that tour pages are unassessed. What proper template should be added? BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 10:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles don't have to be assessed or templated, but I guess that this question should be asked at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, not on the notability pages. Fram 12:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like  would be fine. -Freekee 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was lincalinca who told me to direct to WT:MUSIC. With regards to the second comment, why articles don't need to be assessed? I think it's important anyway.  BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs)  09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lincalinca probably assumed that the WT:MUSIC shortcut redirected to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music rather than here, just like he assumed that WP:AIC redirects to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep in the section above. Both reasonable assumptions, but both wrong. --PEJL 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was i was thinking. Lincalinca mislead me but anyway, linca tried to help. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs)  03:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. Sorry. I have made that mistake before, too. It was meant to go to the wikiproject, not notability (though, generally, it's a good idea to add both to your watchlist). --lincalinca 03:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to sorry for, though. Your instructions led me to read some of the page. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs)  03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tour Page 

message: The links to this article seem to point to Ilic himself making the edits.  There were a number of links to his website under "Audio Samples" in a few pages on specific pieces of music and links and the users User:VHFleischer and User:Hum Fleischer appear to be the same.  I do not know whether this individual (as well as others for whom these users have created articles) is notable enough for inclusion and I would like to leave that up to the more knowledgeable users here.  150.135.66.29 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ivan Ilic]] 

message: I've written an essay, at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Satisfying music notability guidelines, which gives suggestions and tips on satisfying the criteria here.  Any suggestions and edits to it are appreciated. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New essay 

message: An AFD conversation Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mims_discography has prompted the question what are the guidelines for discographies?  Should an artist have a certain amount of notability before his discography is split into a new article, chould they have a certain amount of entries for a separate discography, or is one or 2 entires enough to merit it? WP:MUSIC has guidelines for everything but discographies, if they are allowed there should at least be a mention of them. Ridernyc 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines For Discographies 

message: I'm curious to know what peoples thoughts are on the notability of tribute albums. Just like most mixtapes can't expand from a track list, the same goes for tributes. If they can't expand from a track list, I generally favour deleting or merging to a discography. Some people think tributes are notable simply because the artists who made them are. But the same goes for mixtapes—despite the artist being notable, they always result in unanimous deletes in AfDs. About 2 months ago, there were 200 mixtapes in :Category:mixtape albums, now there's 30. I think there are many pages in :Category:tribute albums that should follow the same path but maybe not everyone agrees? Spellcast 06:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tribute albums

message: Why not just one album for a musical artist to be notable? What do you all think?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to me, to exclude artists that did get signed, but were so unnoticed they got dumped after a record, without leaving any press coverage, going on a major tour, or being important to the history of some other band. Rigadoun  (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an artist really is "notable" they'll receive some sort of other coverage after one album. It's there somewhat as a safety net. — H2O —  08:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an artist really satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, then he's received proper coverage to satisfy WP:V and WP:N and WP:RS, and we should delete WP:MUSIC as something made up in school one day. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the case with all the notability guidelines.  If an artist can pass all the core polcies they should have no problem with notability.  Slowly notability is taking over, it's really a bad for wikipedia to be heading down.  Ridernyc 05:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criterion 5 - why two or more albums needed for notability? 

message: This statement This is a proposed new section, presently under discussion on the talk page seems to be somewhat misleading. :) As long as the section has been there and gone unchallenged, I'd like to propose removing the qualifier. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about throwing it up on the village pump for discussion if the debate has died down here. From what I see, there is no consensus to add the section in. Lack of discussion about something does not automatically qualify it for inclusion. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Rock</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">star</FONT> (T/C) 17:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to pumping it. It seems like it either needs to be outright adopted into the guidelines or removed, however, since the discussion is patently not "presently under discussion". :) As soon as I sign off here, I'll head over there so we can resolve this. (Edited to add: Have done so here.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is pretty relevant as we get quite a lot of song articles, with many of them drive-bys that will never be anything but perma-stubs. Accordingly, I support removing the qualifier and keeping the section, but I would suggest modifying it slightly so that the first criteria echoes WP:N (for that matter all of the subsections should begin with that familiar and basic criterion).--Fuhghettaboutit 06:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Typical Wikipedia policy discussion. :) I'm going to bring this up at WP:ALBUMS and WikiProject Songs, since those projects are obviously heavily involved. If that doesn't generate resolution, we'll see how things go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Songs section redux 

message: A musician related article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Friesen (musician) is up for deletion. The project members may want to comment on it -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 06:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD

message: For criterion 8, we have examples of "major music awards": Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award, i.e., awards from national awards ceremonies of the US, Canada, UK, Sweden.
However for criterion 9, we have no examples of what exactly is a "major" music competition.
It has been asserted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 2#Future Pilot that being a nominee at the New Mexico Music Awards (which, as the name suggests, is an award covering the state of New Mexico) meets this criteria. Leaving aside the fact that that sounds more like a music award than a competition, it would be nice to have some clarity here with some good examples of what a "major music competition" is. --Stormie 06:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, when I encounter musical competitions and am trying to determine how major they are, I look at them to see if they would themselves meet WP:N. If a competition has widespread media coverage, it's probably major. If it doesn't, it probably isn't. That's my own threshold, anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would the national level of a junior competition be a "major" musical competition? Question is specifically in regard to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2007, where the articles on all the national winners were nominated for speedy deletion: Lisa, Amy & Shelley, Trust (2007 band), Alexandra Golovchenko, 4Kids (group), Made In Greece. Articles from 2006 national winners include Andrey Kunets. (Personally I think these groups should be described in the article on the international competition, unless they win or achieve independent fame like Thor Salden.) Gimmetrow 04:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of "major music competition" 

message: Can we somehow make more clear that (reliable) information about upcoming albums still doesn't imply that an album article should be created but that this may be more appropriately included in the into the artist's main article? I went ahead with a small extension.--Tikiwont 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say you'd need to incorporate some indication of when & how to determine if an upcoming album is notable. I would be less inclined to add that information to the section you did--which is about merging existing articles--and place it instead into the section above. I might instead do something like "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines. In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; unreleased albums may not be notable without substantial reliable sourcing." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change of position makes sense to me (and was implemented). I had indeed a merge candidate in mind. Mostly I'd like to clarify that not just an announcement of an album by a notable artist is being translated into an article.--Tikiwont 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm never too fond of running across new articles titled "Untitled upcoming album by musician X" to be sure. :) I ran into one a few days ago (with an actual title) that included such encyclopedic language as "We believe the album may be released in 2008" and "We have heard different things about the songs that may be featured." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming albums 

message: How do these guidelines apply to classical musicians of the past and present and their works? Should there be articles on every single one of Mozart's compositions? These guidelines don't really apply very well to classical music; instead of songs there are movements which are parts of the work, and a composer could write far more pieces of music than any rock band could. In the past this has been noted but nothing has ever come out of it. Paiev 05:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, other than the 2RS rule, I'm not sure. I think if someone went to dish up some old AfDs we could reach some consensus based on that, but from what I've seen it's a (sort of) different result every time. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Music 

message: :Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above
:I'm a little unclear on this criteria. Does this apply to anyone who has writing credits for a notable band? It doesn't seem like a lot of people who qualify under this criteria would necessarily we that important or notable. Say you contibute a limited amount of lyrics to one song on an album by a small band, does that mean you are notable enough for an article?  I seem to recall a number of albums which have minor contributions from, say, a friend of the band and thus gets a credit on the record. Does that make them a notable lyricist? --Neon white (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good question. That criteria would seem to be more liberal than the criteria for musicians themselves. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose that the criteria should be that the work which was contributed to should be notable rather than the artist and even then it's still very liberal. --Neon white (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something along the lines of "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that can replace the entire statement that is currently there. As long as the composition is notable there's no need explain any further. --Neon white (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you want to be bold, or shall we wait a bit for further feedback? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this change in wording. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There could be many reliable sources for writing credits, including liner notes. We could incorporate some of the language below and add "Note that composers or lyricists known for one notable composition may be more appropriately mentioned in the article about that composition. Such articles should be merged if there is insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I notice that several of the criteria for composers & lyricists would benefit from such a disclaimer, though. Perhaps it would be better to introduce a disclaimer at the bottom of the criteria list like, "Where possible, composers or lyricists for whom sufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article is lacking should be merged into the article about their work. When a composer or lyricist is known for multiple works, such a merger may not be possible." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page seems to contradict WP:BIO on many points. WP:BIO says a person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. as a bare minimum yet this page seems to suggest that's optional. But obviously guidelines will probably never be ideal and are always subject to WP:IAR and common sense when necessary. --Neon white (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria Question