Misplaced Pages

talk:Notability (music) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prokaryotes (talk | contribs) at 16:40, 19 August 2014 (→Proposed inclusion of Beatport, for genre-specific notability guidelines). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:40, 19 August 2014 by Prokaryotes (talk | contribs) (→Proposed inclusion of Beatport, for genre-specific notability guidelines)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (music) page.
Shortcuts
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Old topics on this talk page are automatically archived by MiszaBot II after 30 days of inactivity. To view inactive discussions, please see the archive pages. Once an archive reaches 130K in size, a new one is automatically created.
WikiProject iconAlbums Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Certification or chart success? A clear way to establish notability is needed.

I wrote up a page for Planet P Project's 1984 release Pink World, and I assumed notability based on it having made Billboard's 200 album chart (only made it to #121, but was on the chart for 14 weeks) and one song hitting #25 on Billboard's Mainstream Rock chart. I want to know if chart position or certification as gold or better, somewhere, maybe multiple somewheres, is enough? (I think it should be - at some threshold level.)

My problem is I can't find reviews and other sources to establish notability through all of the clutter in my Google searches, and I don't know where to look really. I keep getting music retailer customer reviews instead of journalistic reviews. (This is only the 2nd article I have started, and the only music article.) I don't know where to look for info like the number of units sold either. (Google is useless for that. It just returns a list of a thousand music retailers and a few male enhancement products.) Apparently labels don't like to make that info obvious for future sales reasons, and the charting organizations all published expensive paper journals in the 80s, and they want their reprint revenue. Two of the songs on the album had (amazing) videos on MTV and USA Network's Night Flight in 1984 (I have a VHS recording of them), but I can't find a verifiable source for that either, and I don't know where to look. (Search engines like Google ignore Boolean searches nowadays and give you all the garbage anyway. And you can guess what kind of website pinkworld.com is.)

I am not specifically concerned about the notability of Pink World, but shouldn't a recording that hit the Billboard charts be therefore notable? I think we need a clearer way to establish or refute notability that people like me can navigate, and the major charts seem like a no-brainer, but there's no mention of them on this page or on the WP album project pages that I looked at. The rest of the options for establishing notability are so maddening to locate. I am not a regular contributor to WP music articles, but I think that someone like me should have a way to do this, at least to the extent that I know it won't be deleted because someone else hasn't heard of the album and I couldn't find enough sources for what should be obvious based on chart performance. If AllMusic didn't have that review, I might have spent hours working on sourcing this article and only have a single independent source, Billboard (the most authoritative source in the US, maybe the world?), to tell me it's notable. I wouldn't have "multiple sources" that must be out there but I couldn't locate myself. Dcs002 (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned above, the clear way to establish notability is for the subject to meet the GNG. Of course a regular Google search will turn up garbage, which is why at the very least you need to start with a Google News or Highbeam search. Merely making the Billboard charts isn't good enough, since ALL subordinate notability criteria (WP:MUSIC included) work from the assumption that a subject that meets the criteria would likewise meet the GNG, and it's unlikely that the album that just broke #97th on the chart's getting a lot of press.

    If you can't find reviews from legitimate news services on an album (for example), the answer isn't that we need to come up with some metric to determine whether an album is notable or not: the answer is that the album is not notable. Ravenswing 14:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The GNG says the sources must be detailed (which a page by Billboard showing only the peak position and time on the chart is not), and that multiple sources are "generally expected," not required. It does not say when an article should be nominated for deletion. The lack of readily identifiable quality sources cannot determine the degree of notability. It can only not support it. The problem is not notability, it's the ability of a person with average editorial skills to document notability reliably. This is the 💕, not the encyclopedia for the elite. We need to facilitate participation, not discourage it. Maybe a metric for notability isn't feasible, but a metric for not deleting an article is reasonable.
Chart position alone, at some level, would certainly ensure what you're calling the subordinate GNG criteria are available somewhere. If an album charted at #1 for the year in Billboard and #1 for the year in the UK, for example, we can all be confident that the subordinate criteria would be "meetable", though not necessarily met. This is a matter of degrees, not arbitrary binaries.
Pink World's chart performance suggests that the album may have sold several hundred thousand copies in the US alone. This album is owned (and was paid for) by more people than the entire life's output of any notable painter. (The record holder is Morris Katz with over 280,000 paintings.) That represents extremely widespread individual financial investment. An album that sells 500,000 copies will gross maybe $5-8 million USD, and that money comes from half a million people. There are airplane models that have sold fewer than 70 units, in only one country, and grossed less money than that, with the money coming from fewer than 70 people, yet they are considered notable enough to have their own articles. An album is an economic product, like an airplane, and it is a work of art, like one of Morris Katz' paintings. A painting that sells for over $5-8 million USD is gonna be notable on its own.
There are so many ways to argue that an album like this is notable. It's a matter of evidence availability, not its existence, and finding that evidence before the article gets deleted. It doesn't need "a lot of press," it needs enough press. My not finding it certainly does not mean "the answer is that the album is not notable." (I don't know if you were being facetious.) It's circular to say that notability depends on evidence for notability. Saying something is "not notable" is different than saying I haven't provided evidence for notability. I think you are confusing the two.
The GNG evidence criteria are part of a guideline that is not mandatory, only a guideline. Not meeting that guideline is NOT evidence that a subject is not notable. The onus should be on those who propose deletion to establish non-notability in some manner that others can consider before voting on the question of deletion. Saying that it doesn't meet a non-mandatory notability guideline does not establish non-notability. That type of consensus is built without necessary information and has very little bearing on whether a subject is notable. It only bears on agreement as to whether a non-mandatory guideline has been met. I don't think the GNG was intended to provide guidelines for deletion, but it seems that's how it's being used for music.
This seems to have degenerated into a race to provide evidence before an article gets deleted. I am better at writing than sourcing. If I put my bit out there with some minimal amount of evidence that the album is very notable, even if it's not sufficient to meet GNG criteria, there should be no need to delete it before someone eventually fills in the blanks. Tag it as needing additional sources and leave it alone.Dcs002 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with this. I could not have said it better. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I totally disagree with this. If an article is nominated for an AfD, all that needs to happen is sources need to be supplied at the AfD, not in the article, to show that the subject is notable. Without those sources, the subject is clearly not notable.
It's also a lot easier to recreate an article, with sufficient sources, after it's failed an AfD than it is to try to get an article deleted again if it's passed an AfD.
The idea that one should prove the "non-notablity" of a subject is laughable as well. Misplaced Pages is a place for notable subjects and it's up to those who create articles to show that subjects are notable, and up to other editors to support that if it truly is. The bar is already low enough for inclusion that it's wrong to change the impetus to nominators. They should already go through WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue though is, like Dcs002 mentioned, it seems like a race to find evidence before deletion. Wouldn't it be easier to have more time to look for evidence with the article still up rather than have to race against the clock on an AfD? I do, however, agree with your point that good effort should be done to find notable sources from the beginning when creating the article.Jair Crawford (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the evidence should be provided when the article is created.
AfDs are not like speedy deletes where you have only a few hours to find sources, AfDs usually last a week and I've seen some last as long as a month. All you have to do is state that you would like some time to look for additional sources and most closing admins will grant that. This happened recently where I nominated about thirty articles that were all created by the same editor and all lacked sources. Many were tagged for over a year. It was my PRODs and later AfDs that finally uncovered sources for about half of them. The AfDs for a few went on for three weeks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
True. Although it depends on the closing admin. They can be pretty fast sometimes. Or so it seems. Then again I'm very new to this. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Many, many articles are tagged as lacking any references at all, and they have been allowed to remain for a great deal of time, over a year in many cases that I have seen in WP. Why is it that album articles are deleted within one to three weeks? I am not always here to defend the case for notability or ask for more time to find the evidence. I might not be editing or discussing articles here for a month at a time. During that time, an article that I spent a lot of effort to start, and which I believed was notable (and heard no suggestion to the contrary) last time I was here, could be nominated for deletion, then deleted, and the one person who has the most interest in refuting the case for deletion might not be involved in the discussion. Articles have to start somewhere, and the person who started the article might just have written an article about a notable topic but not sourced it. Again, why are you in such a hurry to delete articles? Tag them and let them sit for a while. If an article is tagged as needing sources, the people reading it will know that it has the weakness of not being demonstrated as notable or reliable YET, and therefore might have reliability issues, but deleting an article robs the WP community of the opportunity to help establish its notability. WP does not exist to provide a depository for non-notable material, but Walter, you are confusing notability for evidence of notability when you say, "Without those sources, the subject is clearly not notable," and you are advocating deletion instead of offering to help fix things yourself. Sorry, but I think that, by doing so, you are advocating a serious loss and degeneration of the power of WP to 1) provide information on topics people are interested in, and 2) allow a broad spectrum of people to participate in the development of such articles. Again, why the hurry? Allow articles a chance to get off the ground. Dcs002 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
We should fix the problem of articles being unreferenced for years too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • First of all, notability guidelines should only ever be used as a rule of thumb, so we should expect to have to look at each case individually rather than looking to guidelines to give a black and white answer. I know some editors see subject-specific notability guidelines as merely indications that WP:GNG can be satisfied but that's just an opinion, and one that I don't share. Both the GNG and the SNGs are means to an end, that end being to determine whether a subject has encyclopedic relevance. Too many people see GNG as an end in itself in my view. That aside, for albums by notable artists, a key criterion for whether a separate article is merited (whether or not it's 'notable') is the amount of verifiable encyclopedic content about the album (i.e. coming from reliable sources), and whether that could be summarised in an article on the artist or their discography. I tried searching for this album on Highbeam and drew a blank. Google News is unlikely to find much since they abandoned their archive search, and Google Newspapers didn't have anything either, so I think you may need to find some print sources. There are a couple of books that come up in a Google Books search that may be worth checking out: , . --Michig (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Alas, you have only one voice, and so do I. I have seen what some people call "consensus" that consists of a lack of objection over a one week period, then deleting large amounts of content or reverting some major change. Not everyone understands that consensus is not the same thing as a majority opinion, and it's certainly not a mere lack of objection. That really concerns me. I have only started two articles, and that takes so much effort, and knowing all that work could be deleted by that kind of process, or by a misunderstanding of the purpose of the GNG - that really, really makes me not want to invest the effort. (I just happen to be passionate about Pink World as an album.) That's a very bad thing for WP - scaring people away from participation. I am not normally here spending hours at a time editing or discussing articles. I might not be here to participate in discussions for deletions if they can happen that fast, or if there are people so intent on eliminating everything they can because they think it is somehow improving WP (or maybe out of bitterness for having been on the receiving end once themselves - I respect that kind of hurt). Sometimes I am not here for weeks. In the meantime people who consider the GNG as representing sufficient criteria for deletion might be discussing, agreeing, and deleting something that takes an enormous amount of work to put together. That is my fear.
On a happier note, I have found one of the sources I was looking for, and it is online. I did not know this, but Billboard has its own online archive of scanned back issues at http://www.billboard.com/magazine-archive. What's more, the scans are searchable (one issue at a time) through a sort of OCR tool in the archive. So there it is, the most respected trade journal actually is accessible! For Pink World, that means I now have two professional reviews (solid footing!) and a bunch of chart data and MTV broadcast information (rotation information anyway). Still, if the guy from AllMusic hadn't written his review, then all of that information would still have come from one source, Billboard. I think it is the highest quality source for notable recorded music, and I think that should matter. There might only be one source, but if it's Billboard, and if it provides a ton of information, again I have to say there should be a holding point where an article has not met notability evidence requirements, but the evidence is of such high quality that the article should not be deleted. Again, I think it should be tagged as needing more sources and left alone. Dcs002 (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Certification (on its own) is not a good way to define notability. There are song articles that pre-date the advent of singles and albums and have never charted but pass the GNG/NSONG criteria with flying colours (Think nursery rhymes, national anthems, wartime songs etc) and there are charted songs/albums which will never pass NSONG/GNG. Generally speaking, if something charts there will be enough available sources for that song/album and thereby passing GNG/NSONG. One should also remember that these guidelines relate to article name space, not content, so there is no reason to lose content. At this point I have not seen the Pink World article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I was suggesting that certification might be usable as an inclusion criterion, not an exclusion criterion. If an album or song has been certified in more than one country, I think that should be enough to keep it, and for classical music releases, I think it is accepted already. I am not suggesting that albums or songs that have not been certified should be deemed not notable. Case in point: Lie: The Love and Terror Cult. But as for losing content, that's not quite true is it. If an album article has been well written and is full of balanced information, but the artist's page is sparse and needs help, then the two cannot be combined without losing a lot of content from the album page. What was balanced on its own becomes wildly disproportionate when combined if that is the case, and it is easier to chop up and remove content from the album than it is to expand the artist content. Saying content doesn't have to be lost because articles are being merged makes it easier to delete articles and in the end lose content. I'm not sure what name space is, but is it really so important as to force these kinds of losses? I've seen this come up before several times, and the answer is always the same when deleting and merging. Content is lost, and it seems such a waste. (Right now the Pink World article does have more content than the Planet P Project article.) Dcs002 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that WP:V demands that we base articles on the content of third-party sources. If you can't find independent third-party sources, there's no way to build a suitable article. It becomes a recitation of primary facts selected based on the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors, and we don't care about the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"If you can't find independent third-party sources, there's no way to build a suitable article." If I can't find independent third-party sources? This attitude is completely contrary to the whole mission of Misplaced Pages! It is not up to one single individual to make an article completely acceptable to GNG, especially when GNG is NOT MANDATORY! WP is supposed to be a team effort, and you guys need to realize the priority of fixing things over deleting things because they do not meet a non-mandatory standard. Dcs002 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages at all. No one should create an article unless he has third-party reliable sources in hand when doing so and cite them as he writes. That's the only acceptable technique for creating an article.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do you suppose WP has stub class and starter class articles at all? According to your argument, starters and stubs have no place in Misplaced Pages. They have not met the minimum requirements before being posted, and therefore their creation has not followed "the only acceptable technique for creating an article." You are arguing that responsibility for WP content is not shared, but lain on one person alone, the person who starts the article. That is rigid, black-and-white thinking, and it is not how WP works. It never has been that way except, I now see, in this corner of WP where we discus music. Dcs002 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
For stub and starter class articles that are well-referenced. Why do you think that Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is a policy and Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources is a guideline? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Those tell us what is generally expected of good articles, not what should be deleted if it is absent. The only questions here are notability, acceptable ways of establishing notability in a field in which doing so is uniquely challenging (older, pre-Internet album releases), and a proposal that there are surrogate measures that will assure GNG will be met. Still, there are stub class articles all over WP that do not meet the full notability guidelines and are allowed plenty of time to develop. Again, why is this topic of music so different? No one has even attempted to justify that yet. Dcs002 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
If an association football league, club, player, manager, official or stadium article is created that doesn't meet the football notability guidelines it is not only nominated for deletion, it's quickly gone. If a software article that doesn't meet notability guidelines is created and it comes to the attention of the project, it's nominated for deletion and deleted. Perhaps you're talking about the hundreds of older articles that have not been nominated for deletion. That's a valid question. I can't speak for other projects, but the real question is why aren't other articles more like the correct way of dealing with this class? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What Kww said. The language of WP:V -- which is a core content policy -- and WP:N are unequivocal. If the question you're asking is "How do we rewrite WP:MUSIC so it'll give a pass to articles I want to write about subjects which can't meet the GNG?" then that's the wrong question. Ravenswing 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't want WP:MUSIC to give any articles a pass. That would be ignorant and self-centered, and that is NOT what I have been advocating. Please broaden your interpretation of what I am saying, and please stop mis-characterizing my words. I want WP:MUSIC to give articles enough time to be fixed, to meet evidence requirements for notability before deletion, and for music articles that can take a lot more time than for other subjects. Chart position and certification are my proposed means to that end. They are also my proposed way of satisfying existing guidelines because at some minimum threshold, an album that charts well or is certified gold in more than one country WILL meet notability standards, if not the non-mandatory guidelines. Dcs002 (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You want WP:MUSIC to give articles enough time to be fixed? Answer: it can't; that's not what SNGs are there to do. SNGs are there to define notability, not to provide ammunition for delaying actions against the deletion of articles lacking proper sourcing.

Truth be told, you're wrong that music articles take a lot longer to source than other subjects; music gets a great deal of press in our culture, after all. The problem is that editors frequently seek -- we see it at AfD all the time -- to establish articles for musical subjects far more obscure than is the case in many other fields. No experienced editor would attempt, say, to create an article about a high school athlete, however locally celebrated, but we see articles all the time about obscure, ephemeral local bands, often backed by claims that the obscure local indie label on which they're signed is a "more important" indie label, or that the local Battle of the Bands victory is a "major" musical competition, or that the group is/was a prominent local exponent of a particular genre.

In any event, I stand by my previous statements. If you want to create articles where sourcing takes a long time to accomplish, then do the sourcing work before posting the article. If the article already exists, and it's under threat of deletion, userfy it until you have the time and energy to source it. It's really that simple. Ravenswing 01:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

SNG's are non-mandatory, and you are wrong, they do not define notability. They are guidelines to provide reasonable expectations of an article about a notable subject. If they defined notability, then perhaps their use to define articles for deletion might be justified. But they don't. On top of that, I have named two examples of SNG's that do exactly what I'm suggesting: one that allows classical music albums to be generally accepted as notable with more than one major award, and now I just found the Rolling Stone 500 Best album project, where position on that list alone is accepted as enough. There is precedent for what I am proposing here. These are surrogate measures for notability that achieve the same ends.
All this talk about indies and local acts is a red herring. I have proposed nothing of the kind. I have proposed some level of performance on a major chart, or certification in more than one country. At some level, performance on the Billboard 200 will serve at least as reliably as a position on Rolling Stone's 500 Best. There is no room on either for local acts that won the corner bar's Battle of the Bands. Do you understand the difference in magnitude here? (That's magnitude of notability.) A label has to invest tens of thousands of dollars, usually over $100,000 just to produce the album and promote it. Hundreds of thousands of people have to pay at least $10 each for a copy of it. That means high magnitude and widespread notability. Please don't argue about bar bands here.
You might also be surprised at the level of obscurity of articles in other fields. There are several articles about individual neuropeptides that maybe 5,000 people worldwide, mostly neuroscientists and grad students, are ever likely to hear about. Yet they are easy to source because scientists write everything down in journals that are very easy for the lay public to access, unlike music critics. Yes, modern releases will have plenty of reviews circulating, but the article I started was for a 1984 release. There were plenty of articles then too. Where are they now? They are not freely indexed online by the US Government. Dcs002 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This does bring up an issue regarding the accessibility of sources. How do we access information that predates the internet and is found mainly in decades-old back-issues of print magazines?--¿3family6 contribs 02:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This is also a good point. It typically takes longer to track down such sources as well, which can be difficult during an AfD debate. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the creator of the article was responsible for finding them before creating the article. There's never a rush if one does things in the right order.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
When did that one individual become the responsible party? I do not own either of the two articles I have started. This is meant to be a community project. We contribute our skills. I am better at writing than I am at sourcing. Should I never be welcome to start an article? Articles are never complete when they start out. They are stubs, or start class. Here they seem to be fair game for rapid deletion if ALL of the evidence is not cited immediately. This is NOT the way articles are handled elsewhere in WP. Why should music articles be any different? Do we really need a stub-free zone? Dcs002 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That's why libraries exist. Long before the Internet was invented, libraries had decades-worth of old periodicals filed away, and in this day and age, many libraries link up in regional compacts allowing even small rural libraries to draw on big city and university collections. Just flip through the branch's Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature.

And if you can't get it done within the time frame of an AfD? So what? It's very seldom an article gets salted, and in almost every case there's no prejudice against creating it all over again if someone finds proper sourcing. Ravenswing 10:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There may be no prejudice against someone creating it all over again, but think what that implies. For someone to do that, they must first realize that they are attempting to create an article when a previous article on the same subject has already been deleted. That suggests to me that, regardless of my own opinion on the issue of notability, others have already determined the album was not notable, as was said in the comment explaining why the previous Pink World article was deleted 5 years ago. There is therefore inherent risk in such an undertaking. Second, in starting this article from scratch, I don't know how many hours of work I have now duplicated because the original article is gone.
What I keep hearing is that there is no sure way to know that a new article won't be deleted for notability. Sure, the GNG is a nice guideline, but it is not mandatory, and opinions can vary as to compliance with it. (I.e., I believe the article I just wrote complies with the GNG, but would others agree?)
Did you know that simply being on Rolling Stone's top 500 albums list is sufficient? That is what we need! Something that will tell me that my work won't be in vain. Something easy and certain. Not easy for an album to be notable, but easier to know whether it is notable. Being in Rolling Stone's 500 Best list or being a classical album that has one more than one major award - those are criteria that are not subjective (unless the definition of a major award becomes the next point to argue over). Other projects are recognizing that there are surrogate measures for notability. Why is it such a foreign concept that we do that here? Or that we even consider it here? Dcs002 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
As far as the GNG being "mandatory" or not is concerned, if you can demonstrate some cases where an article (that didn't otherwise run afoul of ONEEVENT) had multiple, significant, solid, reliable media sources and was deleted anyway, I'd like to see the AfD record. Beyond that, your argument is very curious. You think the GNG is an undependable standard, but that SNGs -- which are subject to the GNG, and which are frequently revised, your assertion about projects claiming "surrogate measures" notwithstanding -- are permanent and reliable standards? I can only imagine that the subjects about which you want to write are ones where you've already failed to find sources which can pass the GNG, and you're hoping for a backdoor so that you don't have to try.

Sorry, no one can give you a guarantee that your article is untouchable. But you want something "easy and certain?" Write in compliance with the GNG. Don't depend on two solid sources; use more. I've been using just that method for the better part of a decade, and of the several dozen articles I've created, not one has ever been challenged. Ravenswing 07:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You have mis-characterized my own words again to the point of being offensive. Imagine what you want. Imply what you want. I would not do such things. I have edited articles here for 4-5 years and started only two! You think I want a back door for non-notable projects I have waiting in the wings? Have you even considered anything I've had to say with that kind of assumption hanging over your head?
I have been writing out of my experience in starting a new article for Pink World. That experience has been very frustrating, and I think we can do better. I think we can do a better job keeping this project in line with the open and public spirit of Misplaced Pages - ordinary people making something extraordinary - and with the way things are done throughout the rest of WP. Attacking my motives? Aside from the serious disincentive I have been discussing for people to even try to contribute new material to WP (a valid concern I think), you have shown the negativity that can befall a person who has suggestions (and supports them) for improving things. Maybe my suggestions aren't the greatest in the end, but I don't deserve to be treated like this. Please assume my best intention. If you can't, please walk away. Dcs002 (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well, but what do you expect? You're quite resistant to the GNG standard, and unfortunately, that is the Misplaced Pages standard for notability. It's not remotely hard to write open and public articles, just the same way it's done all over Misplaced Pages: write articles that meet the GNG. If your article doesn't qualify, that doesn't mean that the guidelines are wrong, it doesn't mean that people are being nasty or impugning sinister motives to you, it doesn't mean that the haters don't want new material to be posted, and it doesn't mean that the rules lawyers are stifling freedom of expression and the open, public spirit of the encyclopedia. It means that your subject isn't notable enough to qualify. Ravenswing 09:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

See the section below. That information would have been invaluable to me when I started the Pink World page, and it would have answered most of my concerns in this section. Not the answers I wanted in many cases, but options that exist within WP to keep what I feared from happening. Dcs002 (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was a good time to see what the instructions were when starting a new article. This is above where you are going to edit.

  • Before creating an article, please read Misplaced Pages:Your first article.
  • You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
  • To experiment, please use the sandbox.
  • To use a wizard to create an article, see the Article wizard.
  • When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.
  • You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/XXXX. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.

I understand the frustration of seeing something deleted which you have curated (I've been there, too!), But the basics are there for anybody who wants to read them. Whether this can be added to, or there is not enough guidance at WP:Yourfirstarticle is a different discussion.--Richhoncho (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Richhoncho. I did everything on that list except the last item. Given that I am better at writing than I am at sourcing, maybe I should have looked for cooperation from the start rather than spending hours on my own digging through the rubbish heaps of the search engines. I thought that what I had was enough to start out with though. And it was, technically. But I came here and wrote about the possibility that after all that work, an article about something that was clearly notable IMO might be deleted anyway. I have now learned a number of ways of preventing that now, as well as numerous places to find sources, but what about the next person?
One point about those instructions though: "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." This is not the same as establishing notability first, or providing sufficient references to establish notability before publishing. It means, IMO, give other editors something to go on, some evidence I didn't just make the whole thing up, evidence that the subject covered is reality-based and likely notable. I haven't argued in favor of posting unsourced stubs. I only said that they are out there and not deleted with the rapidity or treated with the rigidity that music articles seem to be. I have advocated against the deletion of poorly sourced articles if the subject appears (but is not proven) to be notable, if certain minimums exist.
At some point we need to work cooperatively and help to build weak articles before trying to delete them. We need to look at an inadequately sourced article and think of whether we can help make it better - as our first thought. Instead, it seems a lot of people (or maybe a few, very vocal people) look at an inadequately sourced article and think "this doesn't meet notability guidelines as it stands; therefore, it should be deleted, or it should never have been created." Someone who does not have the time or energy to help with an article should not then have the time or energy to delete it, unless it clearly merits speedy deletion. We need to build on each other's work, not tear it down for being insufficient in its current form. That attitude really wound me up in this discussion. Then the attack on my motives really hurt. Is it so hard to accept that someone's hard work is for a good cause, and that their motives are sincere? WP guidelines are not etched in stone, and the reaction to the very suggestion that we revise them baffled me, but it makes sense now in light of the assumption that I wanted a back door for my nonexistent pet projects.
BTW, only 18% of the 500 Greatest Albums project goal is complete. There are stubs on that list - articles with only the album's rankings to establish notability. That might be a good place to start fixing articles instead of deleting them. Dcs002 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages resources to help establish notability (or to buy time to do so)

If you are starting a music article and you are concerned about having that article deleted before notability has been fully established, here are a few resources provided by Misplaced Pages and your fellow Wikipedians to help you find sources and to prevent or delay deletions until you or another editor can finish the job:

1) WP:ALBUM/SOURCES - (To find sources)

This is a list of print and online publications that provide album information and reviews. Many print publications maintain online archives, though several of those require paid subscriptions to gain access.

2) List of record charts - (To find sources)

This is a list of record charts from around the world. While performance on record charts does not establish notability by itself, performance on one or more of these charts can enhance a case for notability (e.g., establish an international pattern of album sales as opposed to regional popularity). Note that not all charts are available online or in English.

3) List of music recording certifications - (To find sources)

Albums and other recorded media can be certified as Silver, Gold, Platinum, or Diamond, depending on the country in which the certification is awarded. This page lists the official certifying organizations from many countries and the levels of certification they award for albums, singles, music downloads, videos, and even ringtones. As with record charts, certification does not by itself necessarily establish notability, but it will strengthen the case. Note again that not all certifying organizations have an online presence, and if they do it might not be in English.

4) WP:DRAFTS - (To prevent deletion)

Editors can create new articles as drafts, which are not required to establish notability or meet most other WP rules or guidelines, as they are considered works in progress. (Exceptions include copyright infringements, vandalism, WP:BLP violations, or blatant advertising or promotion, which will be speedily deleted.) Otherwise, draft articles are available for editors (all editors, not just the draft's creator) to work on until they are satisfactory for publication as a regular article. Note that any editor may change a draft article to a regular published article. If you wish to maintain control over the draft until you decide to release it for publication, an alternative is to keep the draft in your user sandbox or elsewhere in your talk space. Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process. Moving a published article to draft status can also be an alternative to outright deletion.

5) WP:SIGNIF - (To delay deletion by preventing speedy deletion)

Following the criteria on this page will not allow an article to stand if it is not notable, but it provides a way to prevent speedy deletion. Criterion A9 under Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion states that "An article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist and does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (both conditions must be met)" is subject to speedy deletion. Including a credible statement about why the recording is significant (a lower standard than notability) under the criteria listed in WP:SIGNIF will prevent speedy deletion. This can buy editors time to locate and cite additional sources, add needed content to the article, or make the article into a draft. Remember, WP:NMG states that an album does not need to be made by a notable artist to merit its own article, but a non-notable artist plus no credible statement of significance means eligibility for speedy deletion.

6) WP:PROJDIR/MUS - (To find people who might be able to help establish notability, or help with the article in other ways)

This is a directory of WikiProjects and task forces that deal with music. Aside from the main music WikiProject, there are others dedicated to numerous genres, music theory, regional music, individual musicians and ensembles, record labels, even record production.

Dcs002 (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

help with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chris Wardman

Having an issue here - editor has twice now nominated another article I created for deletion, and when I contested again, dug through the other articles I created, including Chris Wardman, and AFD'd this one too. Seems to me that Wardman meets notability requirements for WP:MUSBIO, at least numbers 1,4,6 (as member of Blue Peter and Breeding Ground per "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles") and 3, as a producer, for McLaren Furnace Room which went Gold in Canada. I note that yes, this policy seems to be for musicians and not producers, but I also can't locate a policy for producers, and since he is both, it would seem to apply. Anyone who can weigh in on that discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. Echoedmyron (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

On the presumption of notability and SNG criteria

I invite interested parties to comment at WT:N#The application of the "presumption" of notability. --MASEM (t) 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding notability of scene specific indie music

I'm currently working on https://en.wikipedia.org/Sonic_Entitiy, which has been proposed for deletion, though i have added substantial more since then. However, since the entire goa/psytrance/progressive music scene can be considered "underground", with no awards, discussions take place mostly in through forums or in magazines which only circulate in the scene/parties, i wonder about general notability of this particular music genre. The artist discussed here, and as mentioned briefly in the article is booked on the major parties (hence in the scene he is considered a star), he is at the top labels of said scene and has published substantially.

However, here at Misplaced Pages i have the impression that at least some editors judge to fast, and my guess is without any knowledge about the scene and or artist. I looked at the requirements, and guess this article could met maybe, but i conclude that it is not easy to find reviews, let alone any mention in the mainstream media, which normally entirely ignores this genre. Are there any hints how i could further improve the article and how should i approach future, similar artist page creations? Input would be very welcome, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The best advice that I can give you is to make sure that you find coverage in reliable independent sources before creating articles. The Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy requires that content can be verified by referring to reliable sources. If such sources cannot be found for any reason (including artists being too underground to receive coverage) then the article simply should not be created. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about the artist per se, rather this entire genre. If you look at all the genre specific WP articles, most have been tagged heavily in regards to RS (because mainstream media is ignore it), even the genre main articles (Psytrance or Goa or from the main artists Infected Mushroom). The entire music simply doesn't conform by typical standards, and evolves around music festivals instead. The genre is not new and the many artists, which are noteworthy can be identified via the main labels, festival bookings or from indicators such as amount of released songs on the major music portals. Thus, citinings via official publications by music festival organizations should be considered by the judging editors as per RS, since they establish notability. However, often these festival publications, change on a year per year basis, thus i suggest to accept official festival line-ups as RS in regards to the notability. (If this isn't already done) prokaryotes (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Referencing isn't optional. If coverage in reliable sources for these subjects is rare, coverage here will be comparatively rare. It's the same reason we don't have articles about most bowling leagues—we've no material to write such an article with. Once good quality sources start covering such bands more frequently, we'll have something to base the articles on, but we'll follow the sources, not jump ahead by lowering standards in a given area. Seraphimblade 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Also note that virtually every genre of music has sources that cover it, and as long as these meet WP:RS they are just as valid as mainstream sources. The Encyclopedia of Dance Music for example (derived from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music) gives coverage to many artists in this area, but was published some time ago, and there are other books such as Pascal Querner's Goa: 20 Years of Psychedelic Trance (2011). --Michig (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion of Beatport, for genre-specific notability guidelines

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
See also: Electronic dance music, Misplaced Pages:Notability (media), and Misplaced Pages:Record_charts § Single-vendor.2Fsingle-network_charts
The Criteria for musicians and ensembles §2, states QUOTE Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. This includes genre-specific charts. END
Thus, this part could be interpreted as the inclusion for genre specific charts from digital music distributors such as Beatport. Even though it conflicts with the guideline Single-vendor/single-network charts, from Misplaced Pages:Record charts, we have to sort this out.
Here i make the case to acknowledge Beatport for notability, in regards to genre-specific charts. The motivation is to include some EDM genres, which are not yet covered at all by the current inclusion policies from Misplaced Pages. Resulting currently of the exclusion of entire music genres.
  • The case - Digital music tracked by IFPI, generated 39 percent of the music industries revenue in 2013 (5.9BN), trend growing, especially for album sales. Now there are what can be considered the main stream genres, which can be tracked already via the classic music charts (conducted via Nielsen ratings), which is based on national country sales. However, digital music distributors are accessible via many countries, thus digital distributors of music are currently not covered by Misplaced Pages, since it depends on Nielsen ratings. Though, the major criticism of digital charts is their vulnerability to fake sales, when an artist literally buys sales, to push his ranking into the top charts. This is an apparant problem of the digital platforms and addressed differently, in the following the Beatport approach. Beatport announced in March 2014, to address fake sales. The outcome of these affords can be currently measured via blogs, who track ousted fake attempts or covered here. Suggesting, that main stream genre charts appear to be the main target for fakers, at Beatport, and that the problem is taken seriously. This stance has been recently echoed by the new Beatport CEO, who also elaborated a bit more on the technology, affords, and the importance.
The proposal here does not interfere with the current process of music notability at Misplaced Pages. It serves to clarify currently debatable guideline additions, as mentioned above. This way we can include genre specific charts and entire music genres which are currently absent from Misplaced Pages, such as Progressive Trance, Dubstep, Chill Out, Minimal, Progressive House, Techno, Psy-Trance and a few more (see for full genre list http://beatport.com) prokaryotes (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposal

Add Beatport as a source for notability, for genre-specific charts, and this should only apply to artists, or songs - which are not yet covered by the current national charts. In addition, to prevent fake attempts to reach artificial notability at Misplaced Pages, a title should have reached the overall TOP100 for all genres at Beatport (which includes all music genres at Beatport).

  • Comment Could you provide me with a few examples of "charts" from Beatport? The ones I am finding are "DJ Charts" which in no way would be admissible. I also have concerns that Beatport is liable to the same problems as Amazon, in that their commercial interests would represent a conflict in the actual true charting of artists/creative people. Lastly, I've never heard of Beatport, which doesn't mean much, but I've heard of iTunes and Amazon etc. What market share does Beatport have of online digital downloads of music? Mkdw 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Beatport had an estimated $18 million dollars in revenue. The IFPI estimated the digital download market (edit: music industry) at $15 billion. There's no way I would support a company who has 0.12% of the market share to determine notability. Mkdw 00:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Where do you get those numbers from? http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/1549955/sfx-buys-beatport (49M in 2013) And the IFIP report 2014 states 5.9BN revenue. The TOP100 charts are here http://www.beatport.com/top-100 or for single genres http://www.beatport.com/genre/house/ It appears that the genre specific Top100 are currently unavailable (They were available yesterday, when i checked). However, the scope here is the TOP100, which lists all genres.
In regards to notability check out this article, which echoes "Beatport, the world’s leading online retailer of EDM", which has a lot of insights http://verse69.com/biggest-social-experiment-edm-begin/ Im still looking into this myself, but a 50M annual revenue figure + leader in EDM (which is the topic here) should suffice. Ofc, you can't compare it to a service such as iTunes, which dominates the digital market. Also there are streaming services, which many consumers use. Here are the Alexa stats for Beatport. Here is an investor article about SFX/beatport from yesterday http://seekingalpha.com/article/2429615-sfx-entertainment-reports-stellar-second-quarter-remains-undervalued Here is an NPR article, which begins with "Beatport, one of the most popular online stores for fans of dance music" about SFX and Beatport http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/02/27/173080163/sfx-entertainment-buys-beatport prokaryotes (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The genre specific charts are still there, go to the TOP100 page, click a genre and on the right sidebar is the TOP10, with a link to the genre-specific TOP100 at the bottom of the sidebar, for instance http://www.beatport.com/genre/progressive-house/15/top-100 prokaryotes (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Re notability, also check out the articles from Google News for Beatport (currently 1600, Google U.S. edition), there are many articles which underline the growing importance of EDM, for instance this recent article http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/dining/271274621.html - Which states "Beatport — the iTunes of the EDM world" prokaryotes (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Even at $5.9 billion, that still only gives them a 0.3% market share of all global digital download. It doesn't matter how many Google hits beatport.com has. They represent such a small fraction of the marketplace that their charts would in no way be representative of what's notable or not. Mkdw 02:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
But this is very genre-specific and BP is when it comes to EDM a major source, there are a few others but i think BP is the biggest of those. Ps. Thanks for the announcement. Mkdw, when it comes to money and investments, check out that EDM article, if you judge buy those standards you have to acknowledge the scene specific overall investments too. prokaryotes (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Mkdw. I really have never heard of Beatport, despite reading a lot of news and tweets. Paraphrasing a couple of Mkdw's comments: the market share is too small and Google hits don't count. I'd add that potential chart manipulation, whatever Beatport may say, is still a potential problem.  Philg88  07:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason why you not heard of Beatport is probably because BP is primarily used by artists, DJ's or music producers. Another scenario could be, when you go clubbing or visit a festival, you dance to music which came from BP. Further does Misplaced Pages:Notability means impact, hence coverage and impact through the dance culture by DJ's are relevant here. prokaryotes (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if I did go clubbing or visit festivals, I don't see how that could possibly affect the notability of Beatport stats.  Philg88  10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it impacts you? Btw, is there a WP guideline in regards to market share? There are also high profile deals http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/07/10/tmobile-sfx (TMobile Partners with SFX Entertainment and Beatport) and in regards to manipulations, it happens everywhere, Soundscandal: Rigging the Retail Charts http://www.csuchico.edu/~jalexander/MusInd/452_259/Downloads/Soundscandal.pdf, and BP is actually banning artists for doing it. A more recent article about the Billboard charts: The Billboard “Hot 100″ Is a Joke and Zumic Will Not Report Those Numbers Anymore http://zumic.com/2013/10/15/the-billboard-hot-100-is-a-joke-and-zumic-will-not-report-it-not-100/ --prokaryotes (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "conflicts with the guideline Single-vendor/single-network charts" agreed, it certainly does. Beatport is big, but it is not the only point of sale for dance music downloads, are you planning on including charts for other digital vendors? and genre based streaming charts? what next, Soundcloud charts? Bandcamp? etc. etc. Semitransgenic talk. 11:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This proposal concerns Beatport only, and digital music distributors for EDM need to be judged on a case-per-case basis, in regards to genre-specific charts. It conflicts with Single Vendor, since the current charts are based on national sales, while Beatport sells globally. Thus, BP sales have to ramp up considerably to hit a national chart, while globally they might even sell more. prokaryotes (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
that's irrelevant, the main point here is that Beatport is a commercial entity, it is a music retailer, it is therefore not suitable for inclusion, I don't see the need for further discussion on this, it's pretty clear cut. Semitransgenic talk. 12:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
However, Billboard (magazine) is also a commercial entity. prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
you are being pedantic. Does Billboard sell/distribute/produce digital music, and market directly to music consumers? Semitransgenic talk. 12:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
QUOTE The publishing agency describes itself as "a leading publisher of music and entertainment titles" http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/billboard-books/ The digital music store from Billboard, https://www.billboardmusicstore.com/ prokaryotes (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
books, irrelevant, you are discussing music sales and the charting of said sales, sorry, but I have nothing more to offer on this topic. Semitransgenic talk. 12:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe read again what i posted, Billboard distributes music to their own digital music store, thus rendering your argument irrelevant. prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I now have, there may be a point here, I would need to look further, but it is a territory specific service, so differs somewhat from Beatport. Semitransgenic talk. 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If you view both Billboard and Beatport as equal, in terms of their status as commercial entities, and you view this as inconsequential, what are your objections then to the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart? Wouldn’t this suffice? If the sales of a dance record warrant inclusion on this chart then the notability criteria for dance music would be met, no? Why do you feel the Beatport Top 100 is more important as a point of reference? I would question the relevance of providing the Beatport genre specific charting, particularly for the niche sub/micro categories, the sales figures are relatively low, so, notability is questionable. Why do we need this level of granularity at this time? An additional issue with the use of Beatport charts relates to the problem of differing definitions of genre, for instance there are very good reasons why the term "Beatport techno" arose, are we now resigned to letting Beatport define what a certain style of music is or isn't? Semitransgenic talk. 14:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
My motivation for the inclusion of BP for genre-specific music is simply because many successful artists are considered not notable by Misplaced Pages, unless they sell so many tracks/albums that they somehow appear in the mainstream charts. However, today's fast evolving electric dance music genres doesn't necessarily work by these standards. Often in the EDM music scene, artists establish themself through the various events/music festivals - a multi-billion dollar industry (4.5BN). But these artists only manage to rank at EDM specific charts (for the most parts), and never appear at Billboard. And because of this discrepancy, there is a gap between the Billboard charts and what many young people listen. If you compare sales, iTunes has the biggest chunk of this market (63%), other big providers, include many streaming services. Though, there aren't really much alternatives to BP. If an artists manages to get into the overall TOP100 ranking at BP, which is still a considerable challenge, they should qualify as notable here at the Misplaced Pages. 1.) There are currently no real alternatives for EDM charts, the quality of the Billboard EDM charts is unclear, and why support monopolization? 2) Misplaced Pages should acknowledge artists which are most successful in the EDM music genre, because often they establish their fame through the EDM scene, and not only those few who get pushed through the mainstream markets 3) Billboard itself has issues to track their genre-specific music (see below related link), and much could be written about their methodology, especially since they include streaming - which may be prone to chart abuse too. The inclusion of BP would benefit the music industry, who gets better informed about newcomers, fans can finally begin to look-up their stars at Misplaced Pages, and artists get more reputation, what they deserve.(win-win) --prokaryotes (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your line of argumentation does not convince me that the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart is inadequate. I also find your statement "The inclusion of BP would benefit the music industry, who gets better informed about newcomers, fans can finally begin to look-up their stars at Misplaced Pages, and artists get more reputation, what they deserve" particularly off-putting, and indicates to me that you simply do not understand what Misplaced Pages is all about. We are already plagued with non-notables using Misplaced Pages entries to help their SEO campaigns, your proposal would simply make this situation worse - an artist charting at no. 33 on a Beatport glitch-dub-hop-step chart does not automatically infer notability. Semitransgenic talk. 15:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You have misunderstood the proposal, the inclusion criteria proposed is for specific BP genre releases, which make it into the overall TOP100 charts, not the genre specific TOP100's. There are different charts, TOP100's for the genre-specific charts, which you mentioned, and a ranking for the TOP100 of all genres, which has been suggested here. Thus ranking in the TOP100's or TOP10's of a specific genre, won't be enough, unless they make it into the main TOP100 (which consists of all genres). http://www.beatport.com/top-100 And many of the artists ranked there, are already mentioned on Misplaced Pages, the extension criteria just would allow a few more artists. --prokaryotes (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand that you wish to present the Beatport Top 100 as being more authoritative than the Billboard Dance/Electronic Songs chart and that you view it as being somehow less prone to industry manipulation. Semitransgenic talk. 15:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
In fact, i think we should use both. Each has it's strength and weaknesses. prokaryotes (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: I would also like to add to this conversation that "charting" is not the only way to establish notability on Misplaced Pages. If a band tours or makes significant headway in their genre, they will receive plenty of coverage and thus would qualify for our notability guidelines. Mkdw 15:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, often coverage of "EDM" festivals in the mainstream media, is rather limited, unless it is about a Billboard artist... and is EDM sub-genre-specific. --prokaryotes (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Related

Categories: