Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Notability (music). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Removing or changing criteria #5

Currently, for a band to meet notability guidelines per WP:BAND, they have to meet only one out of twelve different criterion. Of them, #5 currently states this in its full form:

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

I feel like this criteria is unneeded for a band to be notable, as the ONLY thing they have to do is have two albums on a "notable" record label. However, it is generally stated that "notability is not inherited" meaning the band has notability simply for having a couple of albums on a "notable" label. If a band truly is noteworthy for inclusion on Wikipedia, I think they need a little more notability than that. I've seen people interpret this criteria as "if the band's record label has a Wikipedia page, then this band MUST be notable" when actually the record label has little notability itself. All in all, if the band can meet criteria #5 AND another criteria, that is fine, but if the band can't even meet just one other criteria, then the band shouldn't be notable. Tavix (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

2 or more albums on a major or significant indie label indicates that an artist is notable. General notability criteria still have to be met however many criteria of WP:BAND are met, so significant coverage in reliable sources is still a requirement. WP:BAND makes sense to me as it is (if correctly applied), because an artist that has released 2 albums on a major label or one of the genuinely more significant independent labels is almost certain to have generated the required coverage.--Michig (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you have some good points, but the almost certain is the part that scares me, and leaves room for a loophole. I do think it is a logical requirement, but the fact that a band/musician needs one requirement to meet WP:BAND, and if that requirement is #5, there could be some room for notability issues. Here's an example I came upon. Silo (band) was hit up for deletion a couple of weeks ago, and an editor decided to keep it per #5. It ended up that the record label wasn't notable over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swim ~, but from that I can see how it can be misinterpreted as such. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said criterion #5 is not necessarily enough on its own, but if properly applied is a good indication. Also, the 'notability' of a record label in terms of justifying an article here is a different issue to 'importance' for the purposes of criterion #5. While it's possible that Swim ~ isn't 'notable' by WP standards, there are some notable artists on the label. In my view, 2 albums on Swim ~ wouldn't be enough to keep at AFD without also demonstrating significant coverage (which if found would in itself be sufficient for a keep). I don't see this as a problem with the guideline, however, as the guideline is there simply to provide a general rule of thumb and every article needs to be looked at on its own merits. --Michig (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tavix, the issue comes up and threads are started and then seem to die off. Take a look above for this same issue as it was raised in November. See also archived discussions at "Number of Albums" and "Criterion 5 - why two or more albums needed for notability?" for a few other examples. What I said in November on this topic still hold true as far as albums go. I think the overall concepts are fine but they do need refining based on the times we live in. The days of pressing up your own album and driving around to brick and mortar shops, selling out of the trunk of your car, are pretty much gone. Now you can use online sites such as SNOCAP or IndiePendance Music and sell direct to the consumer. And even Billboard, which is used as a source to verify "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", number 2 - "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart", now tracks and lists digital/internet downloads such as "Hot Rigntones" and "Hot Digital Songs" using sources such as Yahoo Music, eventful and from websites that utilize the MuzeTunes software. There have been discussions about "promo only" songs that are normally not allowed and while they are not directly related to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", number 5 they they would meet the same criteria of charting per "Albums, singles and songs" that "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", number 2 uses. Billboard now tracks "promo only" song releases ("Neurotic Media Top 10 Promotional Downloads") Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sampling as indicia of notability

I recently started an article on the Funkadelic song Get Off Your Ass and Jam. So far as I know, it has never charted (unlikely that it would have, given the vulgarity of the lyrics), but as the article indicates, it has been extensively sampled (including one sampling incident that resulted in a legal decision which now appears in most copyright casebooks). Should extensive sampling not be sufficient to garner encyclopedic notability as a song? bd2412 T 15:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Extensive sampling in and of itself would not be, but I would imagine that with the issues you describe the song is probably pretty well-covered in independent and reliable sources. That (and only that) is the measure of notability—has it actually been noted, do we have sufficient source material to write a full article on it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right. The policy reads as follows: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

That says three things: (1) the vast majority of songs are not notable and should simply redirect to the article about the songwriter, album, or artist; (2) songs that have charted, won awards, or have been covered several times are notable; and (3) NOTABILITY ASIDE, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article.

In other words, the only measure of notability is not the amount of verifiable material; indeed, that isn't a measure of notability at all, but an independent requirement that a song must meet even if it is notable. It seems to me that if a song is frequently sampled, that's not much different from being frequently covered and thus would meet the notability criterion; however, if there isn't enough verifiable material, it still doesn't get a page.

I think a lot of people are using the wealth of verifiable material about particular artists' song catalogues as an excuse to put too many song pages up about songs that aren't actually notable, but which have simply been written about as part of large works on the entirety of the artist's work product. But that's not what the policy says. The policy requires a showing of notability PLUS sufficient verifiable material for an article.66.92.37.74 (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You have missed the opening sentence of the section, I think, which indicates that "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is the primary notability criteria for songs and albums: that they meet WP:N. The basic criteria at WP:N says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The bit you've quoted is offering examples of songs that "are probably notable"—it isn't saying that they are automatically notable or that songs that do not match those examples are automatically not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If a topic has been noted, that clearly demonstrates that it can be noted, hence it is notable in the normal meaning of the word, even if not WP:Notable. Indeed WP:N should rather be called noteworthiness than notability.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If Moonriddengirl is right, then why is there being enough verifiable material mentioned as a separate issue "notability aside" in the song notability criterion? I assume it is because being written up in verifiable sources simply establishes a presumption of notability in any case, and that that presumption can be overcome if there are other policy reasons expressed in Wikipedia guidelines that counsel against inclusion: "'Presumed' means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not."

That seems to be exactly what the song criterion does. It is saying that even though there is lots of verfiable material about many songs, songs should generally be treated on the artist's, songwriter's, or album's page, because there are plenty of songs with verifiable material written about them which are nonetheless not actually notable.66.92.37.74 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I rather disagree with that. Consider a relatively minor artist, such as Hoku. Her first album had eleven songs on it, but only one made the top 40 and has an article here. The other ten, you probably couldn't find a written word about in any kind of mainstream media other than a passing comment in a review of the album as a whole. It is equally unlikely that any of them has been covered or sampled. Now, maybe Funkadelic's Get Off Your Ass and Jam is a bad example for this topic as a whole, because it has a cultural influence that has been written about in other media, and does not need to rely on the sampling. Or maybe any song that gets sampled that much must be catchy enough that it is also likely to have been written about elsewhere, making the question of whether sampling alone is enough a moot point. bd2412 T 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to 66.92.37.74: if there are 30 sources saying "Song X is important" but not enough verifiable material to sustain an article about said song, the article is unnecessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And that's what the notability criterion for songs says. You have to have both (1) a notable song, specifically deserving of its own page rather than simply being dealt with on the album, artist, or songwriter page, and (2) sufficient verifiable material to write about it.

Frequent sampling satisfies (1), but you still need to meet (2). In my experience, though, the big problem on Wikipedia is that (2) becomes a substitute for (1) and songs that have little importance whatsoever get pages simply because people write a lot about certain artists and thus there's plenty of verifiable material.66.92.37.74 (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble following your conclusion there. :) If there's plenty of verifiable material (since WP:V requires WP:RS), there's almost certain to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is trivia. There's simply so much published material on popular music (and especially on the most popular acts) that it is possible for Wikipedia to be larded up with all sorts of trivia on relatively unimportant songs by major artists. Indeed, I am almost sure that this is the reason why there is a special refinement of the notability rule for songs. There's plenty of material. It's reliable. It's verifiable. It's just not very important. And if the criterion becomes simply anything that has sufficient verifiable, reliable material relating to it to comprise a reasonable size Wikipedia page, then you really don't have a notability requirement for songs; rather, for a notable artist, every song, even the completely unnotable ones, can get pages.

So the solution is that Wikipedia cites the general notability criterion but then says that most songs shouldn't be considered notable, that they can be discussed on album and artist pages, and that examples of the kinds of songs that are actually notable are hits, award-winning songs, and songs that have been covered by lots of artists. And then, the guideline says that in addition to meeting this special, refined criterion of notability, the song on top of that also has to have enough verfiable material for a reasonably complete Wikipedia page.

I am really having a hard time seeing why there would be a separate notability guideline for songs if the actual criterion to be applied is simply whether or not people have commented about the song. That could have been handled under the general criterion. If the purpose of the special, refined criterion for songs isn't to cut down on the number of songs that receive an individual Wikipedia page, what is the purpose of it?66.92.37.74 (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The text has two-fold purpose: first, to warn people that most songs will not meet the criteria (listing some types that probably will) and second to point out to people that, even if they do, it's going to be better to discuss the song at the album article if there's not enough sourced information to provide a detailed encyclopedia article. The general disclaimer may help prevent sub-stubs that say only, "This song is mentioned by name in This Book, That Book, That Newspaper and That Video Documentary." Being mentioned by name in 1,000 books, say, may be more than enough to meet notability, but it isn't enough to write about. As to your "larding" concerns, Wikipedia is big, which allows us to cover pretty much anything we as a community agree is worth coverage. (wikimedia:Wiki is not paper comes to mind, with its note that we could easily have an article on every Simpsons character and an article on every episode.) There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that make me roll my eyes, but at this particular point consensus is that they belong. At the time of my first edit to the songs section, it was (imo) a little more clear, but it was also even more generous in its notability allowances, as it did not require widespread reliable sourcing to establish notability in all cases. (I personally approve of the tightening of the standards; #2 was particularly liberal and when you start to include live performances can really multiply the number of songs "covered". The examples in our article are really an artifact of that older language; it's debatable whether they need to be there now at all, imo.) But doing a comparison brings up another point: these guidelines are not written in stone. If you feel like the language of the current form is misleading or difficult to understand, we should consider here how it might be improved. Overthrowing the basic provision of WP:N, that's a little more contentious and would probably require much wider participation than we get. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Work of media that is notable.

Sorry if this has been done to death... But criteria 10 seems impossibly vague to me. "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)" seems to me that it basically says that if the band is already notable, then criteria 10 makes them notable, and if they aren't notable, this doesn't make them notable. The reason I ask is that I recently nominated BrokeNCYDE for deletion, and the one argument to keep that *I* thought worthwhile was they having been on MTV's Total Request Live. But WP:MUSIC is no help at all on that, it can be interpreted any way you want. Couldn't criteria 10 be changed to be a wee bit less vague? Dendlai (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well. Either remove the parenthesis, or remove the criteria altogether is what I'd do... I just think it reads like "If you are an inclusionist, this infers notability. If you are a deletionist, it doesn't". And really. If a band has performed for a reasonably "high" notability show, they probably will get enough press from that to meet the criteria. If not... was their performance really notable? Not that deletion debates are rational most of the time anyway :) Dendlai (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem with removing the criterion, because I find your point persuasive. But we probably need to publicize that one a bit. :) I'll mention the idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and invite feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not getting much by way of feedback. Are you still interested in pursuing this? If so, I'd suggest implementing unless somebody objects around January 5th. People may be traveling for holidays, but that should give most of us time to settle back in. WP:BOLD is not necessarily recommended on guideline or policy pages, but it's not that bold when you announce days in advance. :) At that point, I think it would be fair to let the WP:BRD cycle begin. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"If so, I'd suggest implementing unless somebody objects..." - And we all know how dangerous that can be! LOL! I would be against removing the criteria all together because if an artist has done the theme/title song for a film or a TV show that would be notable. (But one could also argue that being asked to write a song and perform it is more notable that simply using an existing song) Perhaps it might be worded in a manor consistent with criteria number 5. Perhaps: "Has performed music for at least two works of media..." or, perhaps, start a sub set of guidlines that would list criteria that, when used in combination, would establish notability - such as suggested by the wording in parenthesis. Doing this would require a bot more work but it may also help with ongoing questions with criteria such as 4, 5, 6 and 8. (Comments/Questions such as "What size does the country have to be?", "Does being in the top 5/10/20/50 count?" or "Should notability be inherited?" come to mind). Just to be clear where I stand - against removing it all altogether. Open to clarification of requirements either in the criteria or as a new subset of "criteria that can be combined". Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, we do. :) So the BRD cycle goes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what it means is that the criterion is enough that an article should not be deleted, but it is recommending editors think about whether such an article is really necessary. In other words, this criterion says, "yes, it's legal, but please think about it first." I think that's perfectly reasonable, and would only support changing it if there is a lot of edit warring surrounding it. -Freekee (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We7

Apologies if this is not the right place to raise this. After reading about the We7 site in The Guardian's Technology section on 8 Jan, I went to We7 tonight to find out more, only to find that there is no article and the page is fully protected, because of multiple creations and speedy deletions. I'm not sure what notability standards are for websites like this, whether We7 is considered notable enough to ask for unprotection, which is why I'm posting this in the hope that more knowledgeable editors can help.

We7 has certainly been covered more than once in the mainstream press. For example: The Guardian, CNET UK, The Telegraph. However, it's not nearly as widely covered as, say, last.fm is. I think I could be pretty certain of creating an article which would assert notability enough to avoid any chance of speedy deletion - but, as I say, I'm not sure whether it meets WP:MUSIC - hence this post. Loganberry (Talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I believe what you actually need to meet here is WP:WEB (unless it's got an offline presence, in which case you'd be looking at WP:ORG. This guideline covers musicians and their products, but not the companies that distribute them. But with the links you give as example, I don't see how it could miss, especially if these are just examples. If there's more of the same, you should be able to assert notability fairly easily, I should think. It's the standard widespread reliable sourcing to verify that we see in most of the guidelines. --Moonriddengirl2 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah; thanks. I thought after posting my question that it might be WP:WEB rather than WP:MUSIC, but thought I'd wait for a response here anyway. Thanks for the answer, in any case. Loganberry (Talk) 12:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about WP:MUSICBIO

It is being argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rojas that Christopher Rojas's being a composer of award-wining music, and being a musician in bands/groups/emsembles that had charted hits on any national music charts, had records certified gold or higher in at least one country, released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, contained at least one notable musician, won or been nominated for a major music award, has performed music for a work of media that is notable (What Ever Happened to the Heroes for The Fantastic Four original soundtrack), and had inclusion in multiple compilation albums, do not qualify him as notable. Am I misinterpreting WP:MUSICBIO? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In looking at the article, as it exits right now, it is lacking any real references/citations and that is the issue. Yes you added some commentary but what is needed are, for example, links to Billboard showing that the Backstreet Boys "debuted at #3 on the Billboard 200." and that it was because of Christopher Rojas's involvement. Perhaps the main issue is that the article makes lots of claims but they are all vague - "helped produced" and "worked with" are not specific enough. Likewise the mentions of "Current releases include" are followed up with recording by someone else. ("recorded by Vanessa Hudgens", "recorded by Tiffany Evans", "recorded by Corbin Bleu" and so on). The very first line in the article states: "Christopher Rojas (b. 1982) is a multi-platinum record musician, songwriter, and record producer based in New York, USA." While that certainly asserts notability nothing that follows backs up the claim with citations.

Also it appears much of the discussion is based on the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" notability guideline but it is not clear from the article that notability is because of the subject being a notable musician. Based on what is laid out I would feel the "Criteria for composers and lyricists" guidlines would work better, but still would require citations. At it's core the subject should meet what is laid out at "General notability guideline" which sets the foundation for all the subject specific notability guidlines. Currently there does not seem to be "Significant coverage" on the subject. Because of how many projects the subject has been involved in the comment "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" would most likely come into play. For example the article currently uses flowery phrases such as "he helped produced the #1 AC single from recording artist Jim Brickman's Grammy-nominated instrumental pop album 'Peace' with Billy Mann" If would be better if there was a citation to an article on the production of the album that: 1> somehow defined "help produce" (Remember our conversation about wording for film credits? This is the same thing) and 2> articles on this album that mentioned, by name, Christopher Rojas and how his production was. (A review saying "Christopher Rojas's production is slick" for example would be valid while the statement "The album sounds slick" would not).

The article also says that Chris has worked with several popular "pop icons" but that says nothing about what he did. Produce? Session work? Song writing? Articles on musicians whose core "notability" factor is they have worked with more famous artists have been deleted because notability by association is not a good argument. Another set of guidelines that should also be looked at are the notability guidelines for people which has basic criteria that states: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Because of being a producer the "Creative professionals" subset of guidlines would be good to look at as well. (Also just to note the "Invalid criteria" section directly below the "Creative professionals" section).

In short the article needs better sources and a lot more citations. If the subject is as notable as the current article would lead someone to believe I would think publications such as Mix and ProSound News would have had articles featuring the subject. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can but only agree that the article itself needs rework, yes... but wouldn't that then be a mater for WP:CLEANUP and not for deletion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. It appears that the article was deleted via an uncontested PROD for non-notability and then re-done/re-posted which has led to the current AFD. Based on the nom a search for sources was done and did not turn up many - and certainly in doing the same it appears that while you could find listings of credits there are few actual articles on the subject, or even articles that mention the subject in a "non-trivial" way. (Simply re-listing credits in an article about an album would be "trivial", for example, in this case) If the AFD is a "keep" but no citations/references can be found I suspect it will be back at AFD at a later time. The cleanup would work if there are sources to be found, that is sources that meet the guidelines above. Listings of album credits may be fine to verify statements, but that goes back to part of what you are asking. Using one example in the article - I have no doubt that an album by the Backstreet Boys may have "debuted at #3 on the Billboard 200" but to what degree did the subject of this article contribute to this fact? Was the entire album solely produced by the subject? Was the entire album arranged by the subject? Is the subject a member of the Backstreet Boys? In doing a search for the subject and this album I can find nothing more than listings of credits. In viewing the credits I can see that the subject has co-authored one song on the album. Likewise, for the same song, he also shares "recorded by" credits with Billy Mann and Will Sandalls as well as sharing acoustic/electric guitar and keyboard arrangements with Mann. Yes he was part of it process - but only one song. And seemingly all the can be found and cited are album credits but not other sources which would expand upon the percent of involvement. So the fact that the album may have debuted on the Billboard charts has little to do with the subject of the article however and more with the Backstreet Boys and how popular they were. So how well a "cleanup" would work I am not sure because, when all is said and done, the article may end up nothing more than a resume because the bulk of references that could be cited are album credits. Perhaps a better question for AFD (and here - as far as criteria go) is asking if only credits could be used to establish notability, and, if so, to what degree? Does being the sole songwriter on a song establish more notability than being one of two? three? more? If it is only one song on a "hit" album is the author(s) more notable if the song was a "hit" single? Are all songs the same in regards to notability of who wrote them? One of the items you ask about is "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", number 10 - "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc." But the song you cite is performed by Joss Stone. So how would that relate to Christopher Rojas? Was he the the sole musician on the songs backing track? It appears he did share writing credit of the song along with Billy Mann and Pink, but is the enough? (I looked at Billy Mann and that article needs cleaning up as well and falls under the same flowery wording - "Record producer, songwriter, artist, manager, entrepreneur. In the history of the pop music, the quintuple threat is rare if not close to extinct.". But a clean up of this would be somewhat easier as you can find feature articles about his songwriting and producing - ("Hot Writer/Producer Billy Mann Has Hits With Jessica Simpson, Pink and Other Artists"), reviews of his own albums ("Billy Mann" and "Earthbound") and non-trivial mentions "Art Garfunkel performs with the R.I. Philharmonic Saturday night at the Providence Performing Arts Center" - "For all Garfunkel’s work as an interpreter, as well as a writer of prose poems, it wasn’t until 2002’s Everything Waits to Be Noticed that he made his songwriting debut. He says that songwriter-producer Billy Mann encouraged him and brought him down to Nashville to write and record the album with the help of singer-songwriters Buddy Mondlock and Maia Sharp.") Those are the types of sources that would be good in the Rojas article) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Future Of Wikipedia

No one will want to use wikipedia if it is going to be so hard to post on it. people want to be able to interact. What harm would it do if there is no article under a specific title and someone submits on to fill it's space. Someday there will be a better site with more flexible guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyxe (talk • contribs) 07:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hope that wikipedia evolves to become more inclusive, comprehensive, detailed and specific encyclopedia, it tries too hard to be like any old exclusionist encyclopedia. Let's hope that's changing, I think it is slowly. Nick carson (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Circular notability argument?

Has anyone else noticed that according to these guidelines, a band with 2 or more releases on a "more important indie label" is notable, while a "more important indie label" is defined as one with "a roster of performers, many of which are notable". So if I have a record label that fulfils the other criteria, all I have to do is bomb Wikipedia with all the artists on my label for whom I have released 2 or more records and, presto! all bands for whom I release 2 or more records are notable. Good one! --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that way but things do not always work out that way. Non-notable is still non-notable, simply having two albums out does not automatically mean an artist is allowed an article even if it might appear that way. I do agree that the criteria do need to be more clear and defined, more so in this day and age when DIY labels are much easier to create, and home recording and self releases are more common. In the past "important indie label" likely meant bigger "indy" labels such as I.R.S. Records, Sire Records, Metal Blade Records, Chameleon or Sub Pop and smaller "notable" labels such as Triple X Records, Projekt Records and Century Media Records. However now we have artists with articles that have "two or more releases" on their own labels with nothing more than online distribution, which I have questioned. And for labels the reverse concept is where, for example, a fanzine owner releases a few singles but never grows beyond that yet the label now has an article because the label has/had "a roster of performers", one of which is a cult band or now more famous. What is more confusing with all of this is that a record label is a business and should not only fall under the General notability guideline but also the Organizations and Companies guidelines yet small labels that otherwise would never meet that core criteria that requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" exist because of "notability by association" or the existence of record reviews that mention the label. In other words, because it is a business that deal with music somehow criteria that normally applies to a business is tossed aside and some editors look at the Criteria for musicians and ensembles instead and see things such as "Contains at least one notable musician" and "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers" and adapt that to the business. I do not agree with the concept that "If the subject of an article exists than the label run by their neighbor who put out a fanzine is also notable because they put out ten other releases from other unknown bands." (How is that for being "Circular"?) We do not fully allow an artist to be automatically notable enough for their own article simply because they know someone more famous. Nor do we either if they are a hired gun who worked with someone more famous. Matter of fact we don't allow it even for actual members - the guidlines specifically say "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases" and I think there should be some sort of a clearly worded criteria regarding labels that says something similar. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the notability criteria. 2 albums on a "more important indie label" is an indication of probable notability, but the general notability criterion (i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources) is still a requirement for an article. WP:BAND is a rule of thumb. Bands don't get to have articles just because their label has an article, at least if the guidelines are interpreted correctly. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be clearer that the general notability guideline is a requirement for bands and musicians - I thought this was spelled out here at some point, but it isn't obvious looking at the existing version of the guidelines.--Michig (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go futher and say it is UN-spelled out; "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" is fairly unambiguous in my eyes. If notability is not automatically conferred, this should be made much clearer. A note to say this does not include anyone on the album notes of a notable or charted album, just the headlined artist or ensemble, would also be helpful. I note the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rojas in which it is argued that the subject is notable because he is credited as ""violin[ist], engineer, mixing, keyboard, and programmer" on a platinum record. Do I understand this is not the intent of the guideline? What about Deborah Anderson? Is it reasonable to assert she is notable simply because she had a #26 record with Alex Reece (apparently a named artist; hard to confirm but Amazon credits her for the song on Reece's album)? A straight reading of WP:BAND suggests "yes". --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A big part of the problem that we have a set of policies that lay down the core basics for most all articles (Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research and Biographies of living persons) but then we have the General notability guideline and subject specific subsets of that guideline that all stem from those policies but yet can contradict each other. In many cases an article will be created on subject that is a musician and they look here - or rather the Criteria for musicians and ensembles - to see if they are "notable". This goes for labels as well - more than once a nom has been done done for failing to meet the guidelines for Organizations and Companies but at AFD the discussion is about Criteria for musicians and ensembles. In the case of a subject that is a living person the article should also follow the Biographies of living persons and the guidelines for notability of people. In doing this some of the slight contradictions between policy and subject specific guidlines appear. Notability (people) - "Invalid criteria" contains one statement saying "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); see Relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander are included in the articles on David Beckham and Britney Spears, respectively, and the links, Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander, are merely redirects to those articles." And this somewhat goes against Criteria for musicians and ensembles number 6, which implies that an ensemble (i.e: a band) would be notable if it "Contains at least one notable musician." By "default" it adds to the concept that, in music, "notability by association" is allowable even though it is not allowable for non-musical people. If an editor were to create articles on other people and apply the same logic in the same way it is used for music and I don't see it working. No matter what the subject of an article it must follow the same basic idea - that it have (or have had) significant coverage. For example I tagged Leanne Harte in October 2008 with a PROD because I could not find coverage, and it had also been tagged with {{notability}} in March 2008 by another user. Those were both removed because "She was nominated as Hope for 2008 at the 2008 Meteor Music Awards." I still don't see this article a meeting the overall notability but these types of articles squeeze by with seemingly no "significant coverage", only being it's subject was nominated for an award. As for labels I did a prod for Mo-Da-Mu which was removed because "an independent record label that's released material by 54-40 is notable". The label was run by the bands manager and the only citations given are to the bands management and an "article" about the band provided by the management. The business fails the notability guidelines for a business but, because if you re-interpret the guideline for musicians that says "Contains at least one notable musician" to read "Had at least one release from a notable musician", than the business meets the guidelines. Also if you read the talk page you see there has been discussion of this in the past - 2006 in this case. The statement is made that "A record label is clearly notable if it has had notable albums released on it; no other position is even tenable as an argument." The same user made the observation that "nobody's ever argued that every single person who gets thanked in the liner notes of an album should necessarily merit an article." Again though - circular because it ends up back here. To see how extreme this can go look at the article on The Iron Maidens. Don't just "look" at it - read it, and follow the links to other articles on it's current and former members. One member of the band was in a more "notable" band so my best guess is that was the catalyst - this band met the basic criteria of "at least one notable musician". Now this tribute bands article, in turn, contains links to every almost every current and former member because now they too are somehow part of a notable band thusly meet this one criteria. Not only that but all of this bands self produced and self released on their own label also have their own stand alone articles. It goes deep and clearly someone spent a lot of time laying these all out. (And I see the newly created The Little Dolls article that ties into this now, partly because of the aforementioned article but also because at one time this cover band had "vocalist Deanna Johnston" who left "due to her commitment as a contestant on the reality show Rock Star: INXS") Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

An editor can remove a prod simply because they disagree with it - arguments put forward when removing a prod are not always based on an understanding of policy, and don't carry anywhere near the weight of the outcome of an AFD. Of course we rely on closing admins at AFD to discount arguments based on misinterpretation of policy and guidelines. Regarding Leanne Harte, the Meteor Award nomination appears to be the Irish equivalent of something like the Brit award nominations, and if so, coverage will certainly exist (and this was backed up by a cursory Google search [1]), and removal of the prod was not unreasonable. The Iron Maidens members articles look a little thin on sources (~~note that many members link to external pages rather than WP articles~~), with the exception of Phil Campbell (musician), but The Iron Maidens itself may merit an article as the band has received significant coverage (e.g. [2], [3], and see also Google News). If the band is notable that doesn't justify articles for its members unless those members have received significant coverage themselves, and if that coverage only relates to their membership of The Iron Maidens they shouldn't have separate articles.--Michig (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not if a PROD can be removed, this issue was the rationale given and why it was given. If you found sources please place them in the article - and that is part of the issue here. When an article is tagged, for whatever reason, and it is simple removed with a comment such as "Notable" or "On a major label" or "She was nominated as Hope for 2008 at the 2008 Meteor Music Awards" an editor should address the issue in more detail. If an article is tagged for lacking citations or references it implies they should be added. If someone tags an article as possible non-notable something should be addressed more than removing the tag. I feel that the statement "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability." is pretty clear but, again, because of the wording that says the subject "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" it allows people to simply say "in a major music competition" or "released two or more albums" and not worry about anything else. At least for me that is a problem with being vague and not having more clearly defined guidlines for some areas. And the entire "notably by association" concept I am against. Phil Campbell is a notable guitar player - but not because he jammed with The Iron Maidens. The reverse of that may seem true however - the they are more notable because more famous people jam with them, and the trickle down theory is that other less notable musicians who are on the list you refer too are, in turn, more notable because they jammed with The Iron Maidens. For an album or label it is the same thing - I have credits on this album so I should also have an article because (pick one or all) 1> It is a notable album 2>It is an album by a notable subject 3> The album won an award 4> The album had a hit single on it 5> the album was reviewed in several publications 6> The album charted 7> All Music has a listing for it Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, the problem is not at the PROD stage; anyone can remove prod and it doesn't matter how good or bad the argument is, or even if there is one (although removal without justification is impolite). The problem is, the same arguments prevail at AfD stage. This is ridiculous, unsustainable and will bring the music-related parts of Wikipedia into disrepute. Otherwise, I concur with Soundvisions1. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, an editor who believes an article should stay should try to improve it, but in an encyclopdia that anyone can edit, that cannot be enforced. It is not uncommon for people to put forward the inherited notability arguments such as you describe above, but that doesn't make such arguments valid. Bear in mind the caveat "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." I don't necessarily agree with the last sentence of this note (insistence on significant coverage of that person as an individual would be much better IMHO), but in general I think the guideline is clear that being a member of a notable band does not confer individual notability on a member of that band, let alone someone who simply contributed to one of their albums.--Michig (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to add "All articles on musicians or ensembles must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as per the Albums, singles and songs section, and make criterion 1 a requirement, with criteria 2 to 12 as 'indications that a musician or ensemble is notable'?--Michig (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly would help in ending the madness. I would put "indications that a musician or ensemble may be notable"; perhaps with the idea of unequivocally forestalling a PROD or getting a chance to improve an article from an AfD, rather than a license to indefinite continued existence. I really wouldn't object to genuine nomination (not e.g. engineer on a nominated album or manager of a nominated band) for a truly major award as conferring notability, nor truly significant album sales (is one gold album really much of a deal?). It's criteria like #2 (reached no. 199 on the Billboard 200 automatically confers notability?!), #5 (probably the biggest and most serious loophole),#6,#9 (too vague), #10 (caveat is only "probably", allowing not-so special pleading for an article). #11 (define "major"), #12 (too much dross on TV for this to mean much) that are problems in my opinion. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Another note; I think it's unavoidable that people who have been members of more than one notable band will need their own article; such people are permitted biographical information, and it seems perverse to insist it be split or repeated within each band's article. Rather than calling it notability, you could instead say that such musicians do not require and are not conferred notability independent of both bands, they just need sufficient biographical information from both sets of reliable sources to make a non-stub article (excluding repetition of discographies etc as padding). If we can cut out the non-notable and limit band articles to the truly notable, this will greatly reduce the numbers of such musicians and make that particular issue much more tractable; currently with guideline #6 and the habit for permitting inherited notability, this is another potential source of circular arguments leading to spurious "notability". --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Importance" of record label Sudden Death Records

Does Sudden Death Records count as an "important independent label" by the standards of WP:BAND criterion #5? Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly - it has a long history and if the article is correct has released records by several notable bands. The problem is that there are currently no sources in the article with which to verify any of this. Some of the bands on the label appear not to be particularly notable, so I don't believe releases on this label could be considered enough on its own to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mixtape Discrimination

I don't feel it is fair to hold mixtapes up to the same rigorous standards as commercial bands. Of course they don't get the media coverage, they don't have a publicist, a manager, and a whole entourage of people whose entire job is to get the albums noted in magazines. Obviously there are some very amateur mixtape compilations out there, but some very popular ones (Lil Wayne's Da Drought Series, 3 not included) by reputable mixtape DJ's that are discriminated against. You can go into nearly any Best Buy and pick these up right next to Rihanna and whatever crap else people buy. Why the double standard? I don't mean to sound all :tinfoil:, but does some mod have ties to the corporate music industry or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummel (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"they don't get the media coverage, they don't have a publicist, a manager, and a whole entourage of people whose entire job is to get the albums noted in magazines" - exactly why they are of no note whatsoever. --neon white talk 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notability guidelines for albums are no different than the guidelines for any other kind of article. If you can find it mentioned in some reliable sources, it probably qualifies for inclusion. -Freekee (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Francisco Mora Catlett

"Detroit-based Latin jazz percussionist Francisco Mora (who has also recorded under the name Francisco Mora Catlett) has had a surprisingly long and adventurous career. ...." ~ Steve Huey, All Music Guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.91.220 (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've abbreviated your post here because it isn't consistent with our copyright policy. We can only use material directly from other sources if they are public domain, licensed compatibly with GFDL or used in accordance with our non-free content criteria. This was none of these. I'm not sure what your point is in reproducing this artist's AMG profile here. Are you asking opinions on whether the artist meets our notability guidelines? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Transitive Notability

I'm relatively new the Wiki and I've been watching the New page portal for work to do. I've seen an incredible amount articles created about bands and albums. While checking the notability of these bands/albums, I find very little information about the band online (other than self references). My gut tells me that the band isn't notable (at least not yet) but they still qualify as notable if they're under a notable publisher or label. The problem I see happening is that if a label is considered notable, any bands under that label are considered notable then any albums by those bands are considered notable then any songs on those albums are considrered notable. To continue this streak, members of these bands are considered notable, bands that said members have been in are even considered notable under WP:Band. Where does this streak of transitive notability ever end? In short, my interest is in point 5 and 6 of WP:BAND. I consider this to be a major issue with this guideline and the longer it goes without being fixed, the more myspace bands/albums/musicians will have wikipedia pages.OlYeller^Talktome 07:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GMA Dove Award

I added GMA Dove Award as a "major award", which was later reverted by Duffbeerforme. I believe a Dove award should be a recognized award, since it's the single largest Christian music award. Many dove award winners are clearly notable, such as Amy Grant, Twila Paris, Steven Curtis Chapman, and Michael W. Smith. Those four are among the top of the genre, but there are plenty of Dove winners who haven't won Grammys. Jclemens (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an award can inherit importance from those who have been awarded it. The argument would be that for all those artists a grammy would be considered a major award. --neon white talk 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the suggestion. Rather, I don't think there exists a Dove winner who doesn't already meet at least one, and probably several, of the other notability criteria. In such a case, why not consider the award a sufficient criteria? Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Dove Award, but I think that argument could get a little circular. :) An indie fanzine could create an award, give it to the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, the Rolling Stones, and then bestow it on Garage Band B. If we designate the award as notable because Beatles, Jimi Hendrix & Rolling Stones have it, then suddenly Garage Band B is notable, too. If there's sufficient press coverage of the Dove Award such that it would clear WP:N (leaving aside press releases), then it's probably a notable award. GMA Dove Award has an article, but it doesn't have much independent coverage there. However, I get 617 Google book hits and 3,940 google news hits. On the face of it, that looks like a notable award. I'd support restoring it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is not whether is it a 'notable' award but whether it is a 'major' award. --neon white talk 04:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, the flaw in that logic is that any such ex post facto award is pretty transparently worthless. A better indication would be to look at the Dove Award winners for whom the award was their first such recognition--if there's no significant number of such Dove award winners who don't otherwise meet notability guidelines (e.g., GNG-worthy coverage), then it should be a reliable predictor of current and future notability, which is what I see as the whole point of this criterion. Any award which has a track record of press coverage and only being awarded to notable acts, which the Dove award has, should be sufficient, and the Dove award certainly fills that role within the niche of Christian music. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had in mind a more long-standing Indie Fanzine than that. :) I'll rephrase. An indie fanzine could create an award, give it to BandAbouttoBreakBig1, 2 & 3 and BandThatNeverGoesAnywhere. Though they may have good instincts with 1, 2 & 3, their award doesn't add notability to those bands, and it doesn't confer notability on BTNGA. In other words, I think we disagree on the point of this criterion. The core of notability is whether reliable & noteworthy sources find a subject worth noting. The bestowal of an award by a highly respected organization is an indicator that they've taken note. I don't think they are predictors of future notability, but indicators of current notability. Moving on, Neon white's makes the good point that the award needs to be major, not merely notable. I'd consider the coverage I found an indicator that the award is major, not only in the amount of press coverage it has received, but in how it is described "this year's Dove Award nominees, the top honors of the Christian music industry " (not a press release, AFAICT) and in its history: (created in 1969, the show merits telecast. Reference to the award is all over such books as The Billboard guide to contemporary Christian Music and Don Cusic's The Sound of Light: A History of Gospel and Christian Music as well as garnering multiple mentions in references like the International Who's Who in Popular Music 202 by Routledge. From the perspective of an outsider looking in, the award seems "major." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetical question concerning circular notability

Cosider: A person is in a notable band but himself is not individually notable so doesn't have any article. He leaves to form a new band which qualify for an article under critera 6, then he gets an article because he was in two notable groups. The second band is only notable because of him and he is only notable because of the second band. How do we deal with this kind of circular notability? Is this a flaw in the guidelines? --neon white talk 23:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the problems that I've seen occur with points 5 and 6. From what I've seen, it's the wiki community has started calling it inherited notability. Not that it matters what you call it but that might help you find more info on that notion. There's a very long winded discussion above regarding those points. Feel free to dive right in. :-/ OlYeller^Talktome 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple... make him a redirect to the first band, and both bands a redirect to him. ;-) Real solution: Delete all of them if they can't pass WP:V. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these criteria are only guidelines as to how to interpret general WP Notability guidelines. -Freekee (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In a way, but they also add to notability critera, there are nusic articles that would qualify under genreal guidelines, i have seen it used in afds before but there doesnt seem to be any guidelines or policy covering it. --neon white talk 01:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6 for musicians and ensembles

I have undid the changes to this section and boldly made changes of my own. There was no real consensus to change it from am member of a notable band to a notable musician. That change did not also address all the concerns raised. I believe my change has addressed one of those concerns, the member of the other notable band should be a significant part of said band instead of eg. a fill in guitar player. A change that should be made is that bands considered notable by this critera should not give notability by this criteria onto other bands to stop the A was in B and C was in B so C's other band D is notable and E was in D and was in F so F is notable and so on reasoning. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In reply to the suggestion of this critera making a "bowling alley band" notable from the previous discussion, that is where the common sense exceptions suggestion comes into play. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The wording needs changing to cater for cases where the notable musician in question is independently notable as a solo artist rather than as part of a band. e.g. in cases of band with a member who has gone on to be a notable solo artist or a band with a member who was previously a notable solo artist. --Michig (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Obivious mistake by me. The wording need to include independently notable musicians Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed this to undo my mistake. Wording can still be improved, please help with this. Duffbeerforme (talk)

Better now. How about for the first part of C6: "Contains at least one member who is individually notable as a musician or who is/was a significant member of another band that is otherwise notable" ?--Michig (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My reading of this sounds good to me. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Further thought, not quite. "Contains at least one significant member who is individually notable as a musician or who is/was a significant member of another band that is otherwise notable" Want to avoid X was a member for a day sort of arguement. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I suppose we should start "Contains or contained...", as some people are apt to take these things very literally.--Michig (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Very true, It shouldn't be needed if the bands history included X but as you suggest some people are too literal. It's worth avoiding that debate later. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this clause anyway? Why do we want to confer inherited notability on certain bands? Is there any reason we can't just scrub this clause?

In order to prevent the cascade effect mentioned by Duffbeerforme at the start, I suggest, instead of specifying a "notable" band or member of band, we specify that the band or individual conferring notability must satisfy the general notability guideline. This could read:

Contains or contained at least one significant member who satisfies the general notability guideline or who is or was a significant member of another band that satisfies the general notability guideline; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

In fact, why not apply this change right across all 12 guidelines? It's probably closer to the original intent than the current situation, and would stop dead all the cascade and circular arguments that are currently possible.--Rogerb67 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

←If you're changing a months' old alteration on the basis that there was insufficient consensus for the change, then you really shouldn't alter the guideline yourself without first achieving adequate consensus. I have restored the old wording to allow time for that consensus process to proceed. I note that there were more contributors to that conversation than this one. Shall we launch an WP:RfC or publicize this proposed change across the various music projects so as to attract a wider pool of contributors? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The more people are involved the better - I notice that there was no dicussion before the change last time. It's worrying that guidelines such as this carry so much weight with some editors, but the number of people contributing to them is so small.--Michig (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but when you change something back (especially four + months after the fact) on the grounds that the material is contentious, then the material is, by self-assertion, contentious. :) At that point, working it out on the guideline page is probably not a good idea. The recommendation is WP:BRD, after all, not WP:BRB. (I'm not entirely sure that the assertion that there's no consensus flies; the alteration was in the guideline for four + months without challenge, which seems like consensus to me, but consensus can change, so discussion is evidently warranted anyway.)

I'd recommend that we advertise for further participants at the various music projects unless a major overhaul is proposed, when RfC probably is warranted, but it would probably be a good idea to clarify the purpose and the language first. I found the version that I altered back, "Contains or contained at least one significant member who is individually notable as a musician or who is or was a significant member of another band that is otherwise notable", a bit heavy on the legalese, which is why I restored it to the earlier version, which I believe is clearer: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." (I myself still prefer Tikiwonk's change from September, "Contains at least one notable musician.") If the simpler version proves not to be the preferred by the wider community, I like the inclusion of the word "significant", since it does help to avoid a band meeting notability because it once played at session with somebody notable. With respect to Rogerb67's proposal, I'm not sure what's meant by "apply this change right across all 12 guidelines", but I'd be interested in finding out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" is that there are lots of bands that were famous and popular decades ago (so 'notable') who are still going in some form today, but are no longer anywhere near as popular and no longer generate significant coverage, and who may have a member in their current line-up who has been in twelve other bands who suddenly inherit notability because that member is now touring cabaret venues with their new band. I know common sense would indicate that notability is not inherited in such a case, but such sense is often less common here than we might hope. Clarifying the guideline is great but I am reluctant to see the guideline tied down to very specific conditions so that it can then be used by people as a way of not giving much thought to individual articles at AFD discussions. Simply having "notable musician" is open to interpretation, which may not be a bad thing, but in cases where a highly notable band has an article but its members don't, I would have thought that one of those (significant) members starting another band would be good enough to justify an article. Unfortunately a lot of people equate notability with 'having a Wikipedia article'. It's easy to dismiss such arguments as being based on a lack of understanding, but they often seem to be given weight in AFD discussions. In summary, more contributions to the debate would be very welcome.--Michig (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should iron out wording with those who are here and then say to the related projects, "We're proposing this wording. Come weigh in." I don't know that any of the wordings yet proposed address the problem that I believe you're raising--the whole inherited notability concern. If I'm reading you correctly, the case you posit is this: Jimmy Bassplayer is a member of BandX who are notable because of their three top 10 albums, but Jimmy Bassplayer doesn't have his own article. During a hiatus from BandX, Jimmy Bassplayer starts up BandY. Should BandY have an article? I think the core question is how many reliable sources have cared to comment about BandY or Jimmy Bassplayer. Even if BandY doesn't have sufficient notice, Jimmy Bassplayer might--in which case, we create an article on Jimmy Bassplayer in which we cover both his notable band and his non-notable band, with a redirect from the name of the non-notable band. If Jimmy Bassplayer doesn't have enough notice either in spite of being a member of BandX, then Jimmy Bassplayer is probably not that notable in spite of his band, and we'd put a reference to Jimmy Bassplayer's side band in the article for BandX, with a redirect from the name of the nn-band. That's how I interpret the guideline, anyway. How do you read it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I basically agree with this, the only concern I would have is that sources may exist but might not easily be found on the web (e.g. for bands that came and went before the mid-1990s). If BandY doesn't have enough significant coverage then yes, let's mention it in one of the other articles, but if the article on BandY has lots of verifiable stuff and details of more than just a few releases, but we can't find enough significant coverage, a merge/redirect is going to really clutter up the BandX article, so there may be cases where a separate article is justified without a lot of 'significant' coverage. Maybe that can be treated as an exception, I don't know.--Michig (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's basically recommended already under Wikipedia:Article size, but I'm sure that a lot of editors at AfD are not sympathetic to the idea that a less than fully notable section needs to be split-off for length concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm in sympathy with the thrust of the general conversation you've been having above about strengthening criterion #1 and making clear that all other points are simply indications, not proof, of notability (sort of like we do albums & songs). I'm inclined to think we should focus on that and seek consensus for making that change, at which point this conversation will probably look very different anyway. And I would publicize a suggestion of that nature not only at the various projects, but at RfC and VP, since it would be a biggie. A good one, I think. But a big one. And likely to be contentious, particularly to those fans of "fringe" music who already think that a requirement of reliable sourcing is draconian, but that doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to see criterion #1 be made so strictly mandatory, to be honest, despite what I stated above. Again the problem is bands that were around before, say, the mid-1990s, where coverage might be hard to find. A band that verifiably had a top 20 US/UK hit in the 1960s or a gold album in the 1970s, really is notable. Same goes for C2 if it's a sufficiently big hit (difficult to tie down to specifics), and also C5, C8 and C12. In such cases, significant coverage is almost certain to exist somewhere, but might be hard to find during the 5 days of an AFD discussion, and may be impossible to find on the web. C4 has been hacked about with to the point where it is redundant to C1. C7, C9, C10 and C11 are less covincing IMHO in terms of conferring notability on their own. If we could change the wording to encourage people to think beyond the guidelines and ask "should we have an article for this band given that we're building an encyclopedia here", that would be a huge improvement.--Michig (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I share your pain with older bands, since that's mostly where I work, but as you note, of course, sources aren't limited to online. Maybe the solution would be to note that common sense applies here, too? But I haven't yet seen some of the volumes of print below (wow! go grocery shopping, look what happens!), so I may find the conversation has already turned. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

←I concur that if these changes are to be major they need to be sent out to the community at large for discussion. The partial problem with wording here is that almost all of the music criteria could use tweaks for the same reason. On this current page alone we have threads such as "Sampling as indicia of notability" which asks "Should extensive sampling not be sufficient to garner encyclopedic notability as a song?" which would, if the answer was a clear yes, lead to the "circular" idea that because the song sampled is "notable" than the artist who created the music that was sampled is also "notable". For the thread "Removing or changing criteria #5" it is suggested that simply because an artist has two release on a major label, as currently written, that fact should not automatically make that artist "notable" and suggests that "if the band can meet criteria #5 AND another criteria" it might be for the better. And this, too, ties into criteria 6 because if an individual was in a "major label" band it would make the individual automatically "notable" and would allow their new project to also be notable. "Work of media that is notable" is asking if Criteria 10 could be made more clear mainly because of the "add on" that says "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." which contradicts the core criteria that says all that is needed to establish notability is any one of the criteria. For the thread "Question about WP:MUSICBIO" the overall wording is discussed in relation to an article whose subject had no real "significant coverage" was at AFD. At that discussion some editors stressed that the criteria found here under "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" only says that one of the criteria need to be met and the subject met several. My slant was that the cited criteria being argued at AFD were not really the correct criteria because the subject is not really a musician or a member of an ensemble but appears to be more of a creative professional, although "Criteria for composers and lyricists" would work as well. But the issue does relate because it leads back to the inherited notability question. I suggested that a better question for AFD, and here, would be that if a subject had no "significant coverage", but only listings on musical releases, could they alone be used to establish notability? (Per criteria number 1 under "Criteria for composers and lyricists" which says "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.") And if so than what type of credits? Would being the sole songwriter on a song establish more notability than being only one of two writers? three writers? more? And what if it is only one song on a "hit" album? Would the author(s) of that one song be more notable if the same song was a "hit" single? Are all songs the same in regards to notability of who wrote them? In other words even that criteria does not define "notable composition" in that it must have it's own stand alone article or that, provided the subject does have "credit for writing or co-writing", if the "notable composition" could simply be part of "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" criteria 2, 3, 5, 8 or 10. Nor does it back up the fact that the article on the subject still needs to follow the General notability guideline.

And I think a read of the "Circular notability argument?" thread might explain Rogerb67's idea. My interpretation is that, if the basic "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" continues to be define acceptability of a subject meeting notability as meeting "any one of the following criteria", than the sub-criteria should be changed to reflect, or at least define more clear, that meeting "only one" of the criteria listed must still be combined with the descriptions found at the General notability guideline. In other words, say criteria 6 were used - "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - than the fact the "one member" may have been "a part of or later joined" a band that was/is "notable" than the actual reading of criteria 6 (or be implied via an overall clearly defined addition to the existing wording) would be: "If at least one musician in the ensemble was a part of, or later joined, an ensemble that has their own stand alone article on the English Wikipedia and that one musician their self received significant coverage while in that ensemble in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

As I did point out in the "Circular notability argument?" thread the lead in does say that "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability." That lead in also implies that the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies guidelines be followed as well. But more and more all people are seeing in the wording of "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" is the word "one". To lift a few issues I raised in other threads and using them in the context of current discussion - As being read currently these guidlines will allow a stand alone article to be created and kept, or argued for a "keep" at AFD, because (Pick one, or all) 1> The subject was part of a notable album 2> The subject was part of an album by a notable subject 3> The subject was part of an album that won an award 4> The subject was part of an album that had a hit single on it 5> The subject was part of an album that was reviewed in several publications 6> The subject was part of an album that charted 7> All Music has a listing for the album that the subject was part of. Further more if the subject was part of an ensemble (Not a solo artist) that at one time had releases on a "major label or one of the more important indie labels" but were dropped, went through line up changes, and put out several albums on their own self distributed label (Sold at shows, on their website, online "stores") than it is ok for either this subject, or their current project, to have their own stand alone article. (The fact the subject may have been in the last line up of the band for less than a year is allowable because currently we do not define how long someone must have been part of the ensemble to meet this one criteria) Also if the subjects album sold 3,000 copies in the United States it would not be notable enough for a stand alone article however if it sold 3,000 copies in Chile it would be considered a gold album and therefore allow not only the album to have it's own article but also the musician or ensemble and, because of the "circular" concept, a person who may have "helped produce" the album, wrote or co-wrote some of the songs, was in the studio assisting in some capacity when it was recorded, mastered it or created and/or shot the album cover.

I would suggest that an "easy" way to start is to stress (via bold text or Italic text - as long as it is emphasized), the fact that all articles dealing with music must meet the "standards for verifiability and notability" and follow (and understand) General notability guideline definitions and the basic criteria guidelines for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It would probably not hurt to also explain/define that a record label is a business, not a "musician or ensemble", and any article on one should use not only the General notability guideline but also the organizations and companies guidelines. Also, perhaps, stress that for an article whose subject is a songwriter it should not be argued that the subject meets the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" but rather the "Criteria for composers and lyricists" and that producers, engineers, photographers, graphic designers and such should also not follow the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" but the basic criteria guidelines for people and, more specific, the subsection on "Creative professionals". I think, at the least, doing those would be a good start to stop some of the round and round "notability by association" articles and AFD discussions. Once that is clear, if there are still issues with the clarity of individual criteria wording, other issues can be addressed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Equating "article on Wikipedia" and "notable" (as in "If at least one musician in the ensemble was a part of, or later joined, an ensemble that has their own stand alone article on the English Wikipedia and that one musician their self received significant coverage while in that ensemble in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."), and presumably vice versa - no article = not notable - is very dangerous. WP is still and always will be a work in progress. Many bands have articles here but are not sufficiently notable, and many notable bands don't have articles here. I'm also not sure why a (properly sourced) article on any other language Wikipedia would be considered less relevant than one on English WP. In terms of how WP:MUSIC relates to WP:GNG, these topic-specific guidelines are (as far as I can see) intended to offer alternative criteria to WP:GNG, not additional criteria that must be satisfied, so I disagree that they should be changed to specify that WP:GNG must be satisfied in addition to the topic-specific criteria listed here. After all, if WP:GNG is satisfied, there is no need to consult any topic-specific guidelines.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note as to why I used that wording - the basic idea exists in other areas of Wikipedia such as the subsection for lists, "Lead and selection criteria", which contains: "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia". I have questioned that wording but it appeared, at the time I was asking about it, that the consensus was that notability = "non-redirect article in English Wikipedia" there for unless a subject had their own article (or "stand alone article on the English Wikipedia") they could not be on a list of any sort. For example a list of "notable" guitarists should not contain anyone who is not "notable" - and how is the determined? Well,List of guitarists says "This list of guitarists includes guitarists for whom there is an article in Wikipedia. Only add names here if the person has their own article on Wikipedia, please. Anything else will be removed." The concept follows with List of lead guitarists, List of rhythm guitarists and List of bass guitarists. While the List of lead vocalists does not say names will be removed it does clearly says that "This list includes notable musicians whose status as the lead singer and/or vocalist of a musical group has been established by obvious fact or by the musical group itself." If one were to add a name of a singer, without an article, to the list I would not be shocked if it was removed with the reason being they did not have their own article. And, in relation to the General notability guideline and how they apply here - they already do. Those guidelines are, beyond policy, the first stop in helping to establishing notability. These music subject specific guidlines are not meant to replace the core guidlines at all. Matter of fact the very first line here is "This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs." So when a person reads the general notability guideline that says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." if they can not figure how how that relates to "musicians and ensembles" they can find, under, "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", criteria number 1 which says, "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." Under "Albums, singles and songs" it says "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And of course if one wants to how words and phrases such as "significant coverage", "reliable", "sources" or "independent of the subject" are defined one need only go back to the General notability guideline for a clear definition. By no means are the criteria here meant to be "alternatives" that somehow void the general guidelines, these are just, well, subject specific. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On GNG and topic specific guidelines, to quote directly from ~~WP:GNG~~Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right" (the bolding of 'or' is mine, WP:MUSIC is one of those listed 'at the right'). I think that's quite clear. On the issue of lists - that's a completely separate issue. Lists are often (but by no means always) limited to entries with an article, simply because a lot of rubbish would otherwise get added to the lists. There is no general guideline that I am aware of that equates the existence of an article with notability and v.v., although it's incredibly annoying that so many editors believe this to be true, e.g. "all the members are redlinks so the band isn't notable", "album should be deleted because the artist doesn't have an article". I have come across several notable bands recently where articles existed but were deleted due to issues such as copyvio or short articles not indicating why the band is notable. We then have no article on the band for months or even years until someone comes along and creates a new article. See New Fast Automatic Daffodils for instance - deleted as copyvio in October 2005, then no article until July 2007, when it was subsequently speedy-deleted, then no article until I created a new one in December 2007. This is band that released 4 albums on big independent labels, and recorded 3 sessions for national BBC radio, and they were notable all the time that no article existed here.--Michig (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

...and just to clarify what the guideline for lists says, the full sentence that you refer to is "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future". Very different from just the first part of the sentence.--Michig (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read the volumes published since this morning (my time), I'm wondering if maybe the solution is to suggest strengthening criteria #1 with respect to some of the guidelines, but not others. #2 and #3 seem unambiguously notable--that is, notable in and of themselves. #4 seems like it could be easily made dependent #1, particularly since it has been a contentious point. I personally am inclined to think that #5, #6, #7, #10 and #11 might be good candidates for requiring the absence of multiple reliable sources. #8 and #9 are a little more iffy--particularly #9, since the definition of "major music competition" can be pretty subjective. :) #12, I'm not sure. We had a conversation here at one point about a DJ and whether his playing a mix of others' music qualified. Soundvisions, I think it would be a good idea to note that music labels are not governed by this guideline, but WP:ORG. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

RE Michig: Aside for the fact this set of guidines does say "This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs" your suggestion that a subject (i.e - musician or band) does not need to have any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (or - as the same guideline is worded here - "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable") helps to establish why the wording here needs to be made far more clear in regards to how we verify any of the criteria. The entire issue with many of the guidelines is that frame of mind. (Also I have re-read the "General notability guideline" and the wording you quote is not from that section. The section I speak of defines oft used terms that are found across most all of the subject specif guidlines and are more often than not required. Irregardless though, the core here is that each subject specific guideline contains criteria that may be considered for that subject to aid in determining if the subject is "notable" by Wikipedia standards. Each one of the guidelines are all based on the general notability guidelines thusly are similar in their wording, but obviously relate to that subject. To be considered notable a book need not have been "been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network", a CD need not "be available at a dozen or more libraries and be cataloged by its country of origin's official or de facto national library", a number need not have been "given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release", a film need not have been "listed in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)" and a football player need not have made "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre". But yet in each and every one there are requirement's that, at some point, lead back to finding information on the subject that includes:

"...has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (From Basic Criteria for all articles on people)

"...has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." (From Wikipedia:Notability (books))

"...is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." (From the Primary criteria section of the organizations and companies notability guideline)

Wikipedia:Notability (web) states it fairly well by saying:

"Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"

Wikipedia:Notability (films) has it worded very clear:

"As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline.

The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that:: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

I also have to disagree with the comment that no guidelines here "equates the existence of an article with notability". Wikipedia, as a whole, is based on only allowing articles whose subjects are "notable". If I created an article that said "Michig is notable" do you think it would be allowed to stay? Not like that it wouldn't. I would have to establish why "Michig is notable" and if I could do that than, because of it's existence, it would allow the possibility of other articles related to Michig to be created. That is exactly why this thread is here. We need to more clearly define certain criteria. Also to be clear in somehting that is often said - if the subject has, for example, won a Grammy for "album of the year" not only should they be able to meet the one criteria and editor working on their article should have no issues being able to meet a "significant coverage" wording. It is also somewhat doubtful that if the subject had won a music competition that was "major" there would not be coverage on it.

In regards to the "stand alone article" - you basically cut and pasted my "argument" so you are not saying anything not already discussed or brought up by me. I realize you were not part of the discussion but my point then, and now, is that in Wikiworld an article = notability.

RE Moonriddengirl. I think parts of what you are saying is good. But also I still feel the emphasis needs to be put in at the start. In looking over the other SNG's the biggest difference is that most of them are more clear in how things relate to each other. For example one of the issues that come sup a lot in relation to music is sources. If you look at the Caveats section of the academics guideline part of it says "It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field". I think it is important to point that out as there have been issues about coverage of "demos" by acts in certain genres and how that genre is not the same as, say, pop music. In which case how would one distinguish that a grind core band is equal in notability to Britney Spears? Not that I am suggesting to be more vague but to be more specific. Wikipedia:Notability (films) for example starts off by explaining that the set of guidlines are specialzed toward film and that lists "the following core Wikipedia policies and guidelines", which are Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement, Verifiability, Reliable sources, No original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It also makes it clear that simply claiming the subject is "notable" is not enough and that an editor must be "substantiating that claim with reliable sources." I also think it is interesting the wording that says "A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia." To me these things help to nicely, but firmly, point out what is acceptable. What we say is "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." and that is somewhat more counter productive and relates more to "Ignore all rules" than it does explain why the criteria exist in the first place. My thought of this process is this (Excluding the whole "This page in a nutshell" box for the moment):

Define in clear terms what this set of guidelines does and why they are needed. Explain that they are based on. For me I like the the first, fourth and fifth paragraphs. I think the second one ("Important note") may be better as a footnote.
Set one non general criteria that applies to everything that follows. As an example look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) which starts off with "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. See the Notes and Examples section below before applying this guideline." This type of wording could be used here, and I also think would be the part of mention things such as record labels ar enot part of these. Although I found it weird that criteria number 9 of the [Wikipedia:Notability (academics)]] guideline says "The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC." when we do not seem to have any such specic critera for that - unless the "The person is in a field of literature" and a musician, part of an ensembles, a composer or a lyricist. Should we add something?
When the basics are clear revisit the specific criteria. Look at past discussions and see what issues are. Can we better address issues such as inherited notably; do we need to define chart positions (i.e - top 200 vs top 50/10); internet downloads and sales; DIY releases (i.e - self released albums vs small indy vs bigger indy vs major indy and so on); album credits and "notability" (ie - "produced/engineered by" addressed here or at Notability (people) guideline and the "Creative professionals" subsection and such as raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rojas); studio and "fill in" musicians; being one of many "winners" in a "major competition" (i.e - in the top 10/20/60/100); is going "Gold" in Chile (selling 3,000 copies) as notable as selling 3,000 copies in the United States? How about if it was a self produced CD sold at shows? (likewise is a DIY album that sold 3,000 copies notable for it's won article? How about a small label that only pressed 1,000 copies and the label has it's own article - should the release and the artist have articles as well?)

You get the idea. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I quoted directly from Wikipedia:Notability - "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right" is still there in the opening paragraph - this isn't a "frame of mind", I just read and understood the guidelines. I don't know what you're trying to argue by listing topic-specific guidelines against completely different topics - it doesn't help. If a subject has an article that the community agrees should stay, then sure, that subject is notable. Not all articles have undergone such a test, so some non-notable subjects may have articles here, that's why we have a deletion process. It also does not follow that the lack of an article indicates non-notability, or else we would never be able to create a new article. --Michig (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you said "On GNG and topic specific guidelines, to quote directly from WP:GNG...". But you made a misquote, that is fine. It does not change why these threads continue to come though. At this point I have no idea why you are here. Are you wanting changes in wording (as suggested by various comments in threads above such as "As I said criterion #5 is not necessarily enough on its own, but if properly applied is a good indication." and "Would it help to add "All articles on musicians or ensembles must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as per the Albums, singles and songs section, and make criterion 1 a requirement, with criteria 2 to 12 as 'indications that a musician or ensemble is notable'?") or are you not? Also it is ridiculous that you are arguing with me being that you said "2 albums on a "more important indie label" is an indication of probable notability, but the general notability criterion (i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources) is still a requirement for an article." in a thread above. Not only that it was you who was very specific in your feelings on this issue when you said "I think it could be clearer that the general notability guideline is a requirement for bands and musicians - I thought this was spelled out here at some point, but it isn't obvious looking at the existing version of the guidelines." So either you have done a 100% turnaround on the issue or you are simply trying to argue with me. I am honestly not sure. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that at one time WP:MUSIC stated that WP:GNG must be satisfied (it was closer to this if you go back far enough [4] - and I actually like the old version better in a lot of ways), hence my original position, but as it doesn't now, and after giving it more thought, I have changed my mind, as I indicated above. It's allowed. I am here to try to ensure that WP:MUSIC allows articles on notable subjects to stay and allows articles on non-notable subjects to be deleted. Anyone who doesn't have this aim shouldn't be here. I would ideally not spend any time arguing with you but if I don't there is the risk that WP:MUSIC could turn into a deletionist's charter due to the lack of community input to these guidelines. I think some of the criteria for bands and musicians are not strong enough on their own, also as indicated above. I may have misquoted WP:GNG, but the section I quoted was part of WP:N (the same guideline), and anyone who genuinely understands the guidelines would have understood that, given that it's a key part of one of the primary guidelines in Wikipedia. This started out as an attempt to improve the wording of one of the criteria. Let's stick to criterion 6 for now - I feel that the wording that we came up with before it was reverted was good, but I appreciate that further discussion was needed. If you want to change WP:N so that it says that WP:GNG always needs to be satisfied you need to take that up elsewhere. If we accept that WP:N isn't going to change, we need to concentrate on making the criteria in WP:MUSIC strong enough to indicate notability on their own.--Michig (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

To save space and the argumentative nature of your comments it may have been easier to simply state that once I agreed with your comments you changed your mind. Also I know I have asked you this before when I have encountered you but I need to ask again - please don't try and bait me into arguing with you by making comments such as "anyone who genuinely understands the guidelines would have understood that" or imply that if you don't argue with me "there is the risk that WP:MUSIC could turn into a deletionist's charter". Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You call my comments 'argumentative' but I've actually tried to make a constructive contribution to this issue rather than just moaning about how the guidelines allow articles to be kept and arguing for the sakes of it. Don't kid yourself that I changed my mind because you (later) agreed with me. I'm not trying to bait you (it seems more likely that you're trying to bait me). Stay on topic and stick to the discussion of criterion 6.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rogerb67's proposal -

(Current wording added for comparison)

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, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

(From above but placed under it's own header so it won't be lost)

(Proposed Changes in Green)

Contains or contained at least one significant member who satisfies the general notability guideline or who is, or was, a significant member of another band that satisfies the general notability guideline; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

In fact, why not apply this change right across all 12 guidelines? It's probably closer to the original intent than the current situation, and would stop dead all the cascade and circular arguments that are currently possible.--Rogerb67 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I support Rogerb67's proposal of wording for criteria 6, however if, as he suggested, the changes were to be made "right across all 12 guidelines" than it needs a more solid proposal that would follow the ongoing questions raised by other editors and discussed above. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: So in other words, we can have an article on BandY if it contains Mr. Drummer, who was a member of BandX. As proposed by Rogerb67, unless Mr. Drummer is himself the subject of widespread nontrivial coverage, we can only have an article on BandY if BandX was. The specificity of the "general notability guideline" for Mr. Drummer and BandX would seem to suggest that it is insufficient for BandX or Mr. Drummer to meet WP:MUSIC by other means, say by performing a television theme song. Is this the intent? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: My take is this new wording is saying that if Mr. Drummer has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" either as a member of BandX or as a drummer than his new project may be notable as well. To use a real example: Alex Van Halen is the drummer for Van Halen and over the last 30 or so years he has not only received significant coverage as a member of Van Halen but also as a drummer. So if he were to join another band right now there would a good chance that this new band would meet the new criteria. (Keeping in mind as well that if any drummer of note did this there is also a high probability that there would be coverage on the new band anyway.) As currently worded if Mr. Drummer was "once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable", irregardless of any "significant coverage" on Mr Drummer himself, his new band could have an article. Not only that but as currently worded Mr. Drummer may have only been "part of" BandX for 4 months, a few shows, or simply jammed in high school 30 years ago with students that would later become key members of BandX, and still would make Mr Drummers new band, BandY, notable. (But also keep in mind *if* the general notability guidelines were defined "right across all 12 guidelines" {Similar to how Wikipedia:Notability (films) does it} this criteria would become an "in addition to" criteria instead on an "pick one" criteria, but basically the end result would be the same) Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As currently is, yes. But I'm not really comparing it to the current wording, so much as looking at it in itself. I'll be more specific. Generic Singer performs the theme song for notable tv show Popular Kids TV! According to our current guidelines, this makes him notable, although the guideline says that if this is his only claim to notability a redirect and mention there is probably more appropriate. Under the proposed wording, he is not sufficiently notable that any band in which he participates merits an article, unless he is ~~not~~ the subject of widespread coverage. In other words, he meets WP:MUSIC, but not WP:GNG. I want to be clear that this is the intent. (I like the inclusion of the word "significant", as I noted way above. And I think that the proposed language here is probably a good base of an expanded criterion.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Ok, so leaving out how C6 is currently worded and to repeat what I said above about this proposal for C6, but now using "Generic singer" instead of "Mr Drummer. If Generic singer has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" either as a member of any band or as a singer than his new project may be notable as well. This C6 proposal has nothing to do with C10, which is what you are referring with the theme song for 'Popular Kids TV!'. So as the proposal above only concerns C6 than Generic singer would not be "sufficiently notable that any band in which he participates merits an article" unless... And now the last part of your comment - "unless he is not the subject of widespread coverage" is not how the proposal is meant. So, not that is not correct. Or maybe it was a typo and you meant "unless he is ~~not~~ the subject of widespread coverage", in which case yes - that is what the proposed wording means however just to be clear, the definition of "significant coverage" contained at the General notability guideline does not say "widespread coverage". It defines it as "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." So the coverage does not have to be "widespread", just "significant". If that doe snot fully explain it the only way I can really answer is to point to the current wording overall which would still state that a subject may be notable "if it meets any one of the following criteria". So C10 will still suggest that if the subject "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" they too may be notable, but "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article". By all mean please (!) suggest alternative wording if something is not clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, typo. I meant "is the subject." Thanks for pointing that out, and I'm sorry for the error. I'm sure it was confusing. :) By widespread, I am referring to "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred" & footnote expansion: "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information"--in other words, multiple sources that are not local merely. What I'm interested in pointing out, though, is that this criterion is in some ways more narrow than the wording that existed a few days ago, when a musician who met criterion #10 would qualify under criterion #6. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you are confusing me. :) As long as the wording stays "as is" for allowing "any one" of the 12 "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" it does not matter if the subject meets more than one so I am not seeing what the issue is. The way I am seeing these various threads is that editors are suggesting the criteria are not narrow enough in some cases. As currently (sorry) worded it does not make any difference if a "musician or ensemble" met more than one criteria because they only need to meet one. And even if the new wording for C6 is acceptable it still would not matter. I mean a subject who meets C3 may not meet C10 or C6 either but I am not sure why that matters under the current wording. And to touch on the "widespread" issue again - I think it has been established at various AFD's time and time again that many editors will accept an All Music listing of any kind (ie: A bio, a release listing) and one other like "article" to be acceptable. I know when I have directly quoted the same wording you have I have been "shunned", in a sense. So what I am saying is that while I may feel having an entry on All Music does not qualify as "significant coverage", nor "Multiple sources" it does not matter because All Music is accepted as a sign of notability and many times I see "They have an All Music entry" as a reason to keep. Outside of a mention under "Resources" it is not mentioned as one of the criteria (i.e: "Having an entry in All Music") but yet it is accepted as one of the criteria. And as for the specific wording of "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence", that falls into the same subject specific wording we currently use concerning "reprints of press releases" and "articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." And, again, how any of this would related outside of C6 is a null issue because if a subject does not meet C6 but does meet C10 they still would get their article. And vice versa.

I think the bottom line is an attempt to prevent an otherwise non-notable musician from being considered automatically notable because they somehow interacted with a "notable" ensemble. In a way the general note we use, that seems to apply to all 12 of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" anyway, could also be used directly for C6 - "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." However that does not apply to a band setting, only individuals. In regards to individuals and C6, as it is already suggested that Criteria for inclusion of biographies be followed would it be better to reference the "Basic criteria" subsection instead of the general notability guideline? They both basically say the same thing except the "Basic criteria" is followed by "additional criteria" that, under "Entertainers" directs editor here for the additional criteria. (Perhaps look over Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.3 for some ideas on this subject.)

Hmmm - how about this: Contains or contained at least one significant member who satisfies the "Basic criteria" for biographies. While it may be "of note" that a subject was involved with a "notable band" that fact alone does not automatically mean that another project containing the subject is also notable. Notability by association is not cause for inclusion, merely being true or useful does not automatically make a subject suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

Better? Worse? The same? Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing you. :) That's actually what I was hoping to avoid--not with you, but in implementing any change. I'm not looking to change the wording; I'm not complaining about the terms. I'll try to be clearer with what I'm saying. I'm positing a band named "Rumball Rock" which was formed by a musician named "Captain Morgan" whose prior work included singing the jaunty little ditty that once graced popular Nicktoon Pirates Ahoy!. Captain Morgan is mentioned in the article for Pirates Ahoy!, but, even though he is notable under criteria 10, does not have an article because (a) this is his only claim to notability and (b) there isn't enough verifiable information on him to sustain an article. "Rumball Rock" is playing locally in Captain Morgan's hometown and does not yet meet WP:MUSIC under any other criteria. As the criteria were written on January 23rd of this year, "Rumball Rock" qualified for an article under the notability guidelines, if not the verifiability policy, because Captain Morgan was a notable musician. As the guidelines are written today, his notability is a musician is immaterial, because he has never been a member of any other band, notable or otherwise. Under this proposal, his notability as a musician is material, but his band would not be notable because he does not meet the GNG, although he does meet MUSIC. ("Rumball Rock" does not meet criterion 10; Captain Morgan does.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah...I think I get it now. It is one of those "circular" criteria in that case. And you are correct - "Rumball Rock" would not be notable unless, as a band, met one of the criteria. And unless "Rumball Rock" themselves performed the theme for Pirates Ahoy! (Which they did not) only the individual who did (in this case the singer provided vocals for the track) would meet C10. In that sense C6 does not interact with C10 and, I believe, the idea is to prevent that sort of thing. (Rogerb67 please step in if that was not your intent with the wording). But I do have to interject and ask for clarification and something that relates to the proposal on the wording of C6 -

We have direct wording, currently, that says to look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) for "for notability guidelines for biography articles in general." The basic criteria found there is, more or less, the wording that we are talking about inserting here and it should apply to any, and all, biographies on people. That basic criteria is followed by "Additional criteria" which says that "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" at that point the guideline for people go on to list subject specific criteria that, under "Entertainers", says to "See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc." If I am reading this all correctly the scenario is, that if I am going to create an article on "Captain Morgan", a person, they would have to meet, first, the basic criteria. Second "Captain Morgan" would have to also meet some, not all, of the "Additional criteria" which, because "Captain Morgan" is a singer - or a musician, that may or may not be part of a ensemble - can meet the "additional criteria" found at WP:MUSIC. Where the question comes into play depends on where you start. If you start there the criteria for all biographies begins with one core criteria and than follows it with subject specific criteria saying "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards". But if you skip that and start here the wording that says "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" seems to negat any "basic criteria" for biographies, even though it does say here to look there. (still following?) So could we get some clarification on if the proposed wording is already part of the overall criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (music) via the 5th paragraph here that links to Wikipedia:Notability (people)? And also if the link under "Additional criteria - Entertainers" that sends editors here means these are "additional criteria" for biographies. (And should this question be raised there as well?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I follow, but I think it's sending you there for other biography types, not for music article types. The Basic Criteria/Additional Criteria seems to me a "this or that" proposal, based on the fact that notability is presumed if a person meets "any" of the additional criteria. In terms of dependence, it seems worth noting that this guideline was founded before WP:BIO became a guideline, and at the time this document was designated a guideline in July 2005, there was no general biographical notability guideline: here. There doesn't seem to have even been a WP:N. So if I'm understanding correctly that you're asking if we are subservient to the basic notability guidelines at biographies, I think that decision is one we arrive at independently. And let's just be glad that notable musicians are no longer simply defined by "Recording musicians who have sold more than 5,000 albums, CDs, or similar recordings." :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well we have come a long way...er..baby. Sorry, couldn't resist. It was never clear that that these criteria, or the others, were meant to "stand alone". As I read any of the notability criteria they all, in some way, either via wording or links, lead back to the basic Notability guideline with key definitions taken from the general notability guideline. I for sure don't think the wording is clear in that fact either here or there. But that is for another thread. For now - is the C6 wording good for you? Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In general thrust, it's fine with me. My purpose in inspiring this long conversation about good Captain Morgan, who has probably inspired many a song if he has never actually warbled one, was simply a "let's be clear on the intent" here for our heirs and descendants. :) Since nobody is debating this, perhaps we're in agreement--unless there's a TLDR thing going on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Well with us, or at least because of my posts, that is entirely possible. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support(ish) for criterion 6. I prefer the wording that was recently reverted, but the wording proposed above is at least better than what we have now. We don't need this to be any more specific - we must assume and allow some common sense and judgment from editors.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If individial criteria are not felt to be sufficiently strong on their own for notability purposes, that should be dealt with separately. I don't see a benefit from a blanket application of WP:GNG at this stage, if that's what is proposed above.--Michig (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm happy for this discussion to be about criterion 6 only. Unless there is overwhelming support for the general edit (which it does not appear that there is), it makes no sense to complicate things. We'll address other criteria later. Struck out non-relevant part of my original comment above. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Music doesn't seem to be drawing additional responders (it actually looks to have died a sudden death, though I'm sure that's deceptive; I'd bet there are plenty of lurkers). Since this is specifically about bands, advertising it at my primary hangout of WP:ALBUM seems out of place. But I'm hesitant to presume consensus, since four months from now we could be right back here, as this is more or less the same number of people who agreed on the last change. It's not sweeping enough to RFC. :/ Any other thoughts or ideas? Should we risk repeating a cycle? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well someone could come in four weeks and say they were not involved in the conversation and revert as well causing the re-cycle. The more obvious the better in this case maybe. Could we ask some of the "regulars" directly or would we run the risk of "canvasing"? I was thinking about editors such as Nick carson (talk), Amalthea^Talk, neon white talk, Tikiwont (talk), LeadSongDog (talk) and others that seem to patrol music related articles such as Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • Otter chirps. By no means is that conclusive, just ones that popped into my head. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the notice is neutral, limited in size, openly placed & the group nonpartisan, canvassing shouldn't be an issue. It looks like a nonpartisan group to me. If you want to invite participation, you might just let them know that there's a discussion underway about the revision of criterion 6, and since they have been involved in discussions about that criterion or otherwise active in guideline talk blah blah blah (perhaps some more eloquence towards the end would be good, but I'd keep it brief. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Is this ok:

"This courtesy notice is being offered on your talk page as you have been active in music related discussions in the past. A discussion of a proposed wording change to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" - Criteria 6 is underway on the Notability (music) talk page. Your feedback is appreciated. Thank you. ~~~~"

If it is ok I will use it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks neutral enough to me, as long as you don't go too wide with it. Might I suggest we should move Rogerb67's suggestion forward again to a new subsection where it can be easily discerned? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The link in the message links directly to the header "Rogerb67's proposal -" so the actual proposal is the first landing spot. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy notice. After a quick review, I'm already troubled by the whole trend to notability by association. Is every member of a highschool orchestra to be notable by association with the single notable graduate? It's pure instruction WP:CREEP. Stick to the WP:GNG. If the ensemble is notable, it is fair to list its membership. That should not by itself confer notabiltiy on the members. They will, if notable, be noted themselves in WP:Reliable Sources with sufficient content to actually base an article on (as opposed to a redirect or permastub). It's a bad idea. Let it die.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your reply is unclear in it's support, or lack of support, for the proposed new wording. Your comment of "Stick to the WP:GNG" implies support as the WP:GNG is exactly what is now being added to the wording, however your comment of "It's a bad idea. Let it die." seems to indicate lack of support. Could you clarify. (Note - added existing version and made proposed versions changes green for comparison)Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I was not sufficiently explicit. Criterion 6 should be deleted. It can't be fixed by rewording. If the only thing notable about a band is that nobody noted it, despite have a great musician in it, then that band still isn't notable enough to support an article of its own.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can this notice be sent a bit more widely please. We need to get a balanced view and the following editors regularly make good contributions to music-related AFDs, and could provide valuable input: User:Esradekan, User:JD554, User:Phil Bridger, User:Drmies, User:ChildofMidnight. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've flagged up the proposed change at WikiProject Alternative music also, as this is the most active popular music project that I'm aware of.--Michig (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - In the past I had made the suggestion that common sense be given extra attention where it comes to criterion six for just this reason. In WP:CSD we have, for years, dealt with people creating the most banal articles imaginable based on some tenuous "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" argument because they once opened for a band that once opened for Prince. The notability by association rule is the cure that is worse than the disease. We have the ability to redirect for a reason. If a band or musician does not have the necessary qualifications to pass WP:N, then there is no reason why they can't be redirected to a parent article of which their inclusion is relevant even if they aren't notable by themselves. Trusilver 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - It is common sense itself that dictates wether or not someone, who was previously or post part of a musical act or ensaumble in turn, makes that act notable. I am in support of this proposed wording for C6, however it should be noted that there are still many loopholes in the policy. As in the cases of artists or musical acts that have gained notability as per WP (due to financial backing by monopolised entities, or other means) may not nessesarily be of any notable significance to music in general (ie: their contributions to a particular style, genre, technique, etc.) This policy, with the aid of other policies such as V & NOR, inherently favour mainstream and commercial points of view, whilst independent artists and acts who are doubtless greater contributors to musical style, genre, etc, in general, are omitted due to the unprogressive stance taken by NOR and V policies. Such truths should be noted by contributors to this discussion in hope of future amendments to progress such policies. Nick carson (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose both current and proposed wording and suggest to drop Criterion 6 altogether and highlight once more the GNG / criterion #1. Criterion #6 is the odd man out, both within the music guideline and with respect to similar guidelines. All other music criteria refer to something the band actually did or their reception, this relies on association which contradicts the idea that notability isn't inherited and suggests the inclusion of bands that would not meet any of the more substantial claims. I don't think other topic guidelines have something similar where a certain type of group of people would be considered notable because of one of their members past or previous associations. The idea to resolve the 'bootstrapping' problem, by grounding the referenced musicians or band not in this guideline itself but rather the general notability guideline has some merit, but doesn't address the fundamental problem, would make the music guideline incomplete and amounts to acknowledging that the general guideline is still the guiding principle if things get fuzzy. So we should rather highlight hat, i.e criterion #1 and drop criterion #6. (The version in place for the last month that referred to a notable musician isn't perfect either, but at least was simple and allowed for branching out of articles on projects around one notable figure.) --Tikiwont (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Support A good step forward. I'm still not entirely convinced it can't be improved this is a real improvement. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Drop criteria 6 altogether per Tikiwont. As I've just gotten excoriated at DRV for not following every single wikilink to see if any of the bands mentioned, none of which I'd ever heard of before, actually were notable. Criteria 6 is really superfluous, and only really serves as a barrier to speedily deletion for otherwise unnotable bands: If there's nothing but a member in common with a notable band, the "article" should be a redirect. While that is clear from the current criteria 6, I'm regularly seeing people clinging to criteria 6 in protests of clearly non-notable bands. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment — Would anyone object if someone were to start a full RFC on this? I see that the above never really was concluded, and to me it looks like the outsiders to the discussion said "no, there shouldn't be a #6" rather than "no, #6 should change in this way", which leads me to suspect there's something not jiving right here... --Izno (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would not object. Seems like a good idea. Would this be an RFC on criterion 6 only, or wider in scope? --Rogerb67 (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  - Unless there was another discordance here that you can see, I'd keep it simply to #6. --Izno (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)