Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

"WT:MUSIC" redirects here. For the WikiProject discussion page, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music.

For the record

WP:BAND has, as a sub-bullet of criteria one, a clarification that works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, articles giving release information or track listings, or publications of contact and booking details in directories do not establish notability. I BOLDLY removed that subbullet, noting that the sentence was entirely redundant with the initial bullet, which already disallowed non-trivial published works, but was reverted for lack of discussion. So here's the discussion, I guess. Mach61 (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I kind of think that the paragraph above Criterion 1 should be moved underneath the 12 criteria... it's getting in the way of the opening sentence that finishes "...that meet the following criteria", and would then act as a summary of the criteria listed above it. Richard3120 (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Grammy?

Basically having a Grammy or have been nominated meets the guidelines? For example, If we have groups such as the Marvelettes, Honey Cone, and Martha and the Vandellas that are on this encyclopedia that have not won or have been nominated Grammies does this matter such? They had a gold record in the US, but Grammies? TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A Grammy award would certainly count as a notability claim, but it isn't a necessary condition in and of itself. A musician who has won or been nominated for a Grammy would likely be notable on that basis, but a musician who has never won or been nominated for a Grammy still has numerous other notability criteria they can meet besides that. So no, a Grammy is not essential to musical notability, because people without Grammies can still be notable for other reasons despite not having a Grammy on their shelf. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I was just pointing that out when I read a sentence that said

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions.

TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That wording has to do with people who have sometimes claimed that an individual session musician passed the award criterion because they had played on albums that other people got award nominations for. So again, the point of it isn't to say that a Grammy award is a necessary precondition for getting a Wikipedia article — it's just to say "don't try to use this particular criterion as a notability claim if the person you're talking about wasn't actually a nominee or winner themselves, but you are still free to shoot for other criteria if you can". Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a reminder, (and with some inaccuracy and oversimplification for the sake of brevity), need to meet either this SNG or GNG to have an article. Meeting this SNG isn't a requirement to have an article, it's a requirement to bypass GNG. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Notable bands bar too high

I feel that the gold record or higher criteria for music, along with the rest of it is a little too high a bar. I understand that a small screaming punk garage band called “My Nefarious Loins” or something may not be considered notable, however a band that has recorded and published music but is not Green Day size should not be blocked off of Wikipedia, especially if they’re good. This band in question is Young culture, I am not part of the band or know them but I am interested in creating a page for them. Darkheart24 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that they have to have sold millions of records to be included on Wikipedia. But "notable" means that someone outside of their social media and friends and family have written about them. We need to establish some criteria for notability otherwise Wikipedia would include literally anyone who's played music. I have three different cousins who have all recorded and published music on YouTube, Spotify, etc. but there's no way I would call any of them notable. If the band has coverage in newspapers, magazines, established online sources that aren't blogs, then they would be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Darkheart24 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A gold record is one way that a band can attain notability, not the only way. Bands that have never had gold records can still pass other NMUSIC criteria listed here, and can still have enough reliable source coverage to pass the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

especially if they’re good is an impossibly subjective standard of no use to Wikipedia editors. Who gets to say any band is good or bad? Professional music critics, not individual Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

template message

Is there a template message people can use when they find band spam? I'd like to be able to leave a message on talk pages explaining the criteria and linking here. Is there such a thing? If there's anything good it would be great to add it to twinkle. Secretlondon (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{Notability|1=music}} to tag bands that may not meet the criteria for inclusion, which links to WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

§ Future material is currently being discussed at WikiProject Albums. Please join the discussion to form a consensus on its language. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

An extremely short article referencing a closed Billboard rating

I am at a loss applying WP:NMUSIC #2 to Stratejacket. How exactly are we supposed to WP:V when the only claim to fame is a chart hidden from casual users? Perhaps, Wikipedia:Record charts can be modified by adding that an important chart should be at the very least publicly available? Any hints will be appreciated. Викидим (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Викидим Per WP:PAYWALL, the fact a source cannot be accessed without payment is irrelevant to its ability to verify claims. With that being said, NMUSIC explicitly states that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept, and it's entirely possible that there is simply not enough extant information on the band for an article to be viable; you may nominate it for deletion if such is the case. Mach61 20:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Tangential–does "national music chart" in NMUSIC#2 refer to any chart considered worthy of inclusion in an article (which is what WP:CHARTS is about, not notability), or specifically the primary, genre-indiscriminate chart for a country, such as the Billboard 100 or UK singles chart? Mach61 20:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mach61: I understand the WP:PAYWALL. However, here the situation is different: the popular music is not some obscure scientific field that might have no free sources: there are plenty of charts available for reading, so using one that is hidden does not help WP:V. All I say, if a modern chart (not any source! not even any chart!) is not easily available, can we just force editors to use another one by modifying the criteria in a way that the hidden charts simply do not count for WP:NMUSIC? Викидим (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Викидим PAYWALL explicitly includes online publications (such as Billboard), why would you think it's limited to obscure studies? Anyhow, it's not as if there aren't plenty of editors (or readers, for that matter) with Billboard subscriptions; it's ok if, as a new page patroller, you have to give up on reviewing a specific article because the sources are too hard to access; doesn't make the sources wrong. Mach61 21:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. This particular situation is actually quite simple, as the article in question is both brand new and clearly deficient in all other aspects, so I am going to WP:DRAFTIFY it for other reasons. I have nothing more to say here, but would be listening to additional advice here if it will be forthcoming. To save bandwidth: I think that I understand both the PAYWALL and the reasons for that quite well, it is a particular chart that bothered me. My question essentially was and is: is it worth even bothering here with paywalled charts when public ones, like HOT 100 are readily available from the same organization and thus presumably reflect the same ratings? Викидим (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Викидим Have you considered that the chart in the article the only chart that band has made? Mach61 23:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have also read the following statement on WP:CHARTS: in the vast majority of cases, any song that charts on the Billboard Hot 100 can be presumed to have charted on the other charts, and specifically mentioning the position will simply clutter an article. So IMHO it is up to our community to decide if we want to use the inaccessible "dependent/component/mathematically related charts" (terminology from CHARTS), but we do not seem to need to do that. With the particular article, I did not reject notability out of hand, and draftified for other reasons. Викидим (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)