Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (music) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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, 23: 30 days

Albums

This 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

Songs

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In all fairness, requiring a gold certification is completely excessive for the UK, which has a different grading system to most other countries. A silver certification requires 200,000 sales, and required 250,000 sales before 1989. That is actually more than enough, especially for a country that does not have diamond certification, and whose silver certification is (having regard to relative population) much stricter than gold certification elsewhere including the US. The present criteria is obviously based on RIAA and is USA-centric. It should be changed. Silver certification in the UK should suffice. James500 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Survival Records

There is a discussion taking place on Talk:Survival_Records. Opinions / guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MN redirect

WP:MN redirects to a section of this page rather than WikiProject Minnesota - why is that? The section has existing shortcuts WP:BAND, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:SINGER which seem to make more sense with the content. Could this redirect be reassigned to WikiProject Minnesota if the other shortcuts are sufficient? Pingnova (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose changing WP:MN redirect from Notability (music), which I do not think is intuitive and is better served by more obvious existing redirects (of which it has several), to Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota. MN is the official abbreviation of the state of Minnesota and most intuitive for a shortcut. Pingnova (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – That redirect existed in this form since November 2018. It has many incoming links and is used regularly in comments on draft article submissions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The original link was created in 2006 to redirect to "WikiProject Music/Noticeboard" which is currently inactive. A redirect to "MN" made sense for "Music/Noticeboard." It makes little sense to for WP:MN to go to "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" it appears someone just coopted it. As @Pingnova pointed out the section already has three shortcuts and WP:MN is not listed as one of them supporting the idea that it was just taken. If it is about brevity, then WP:ME would be better, but is already is pointing to "Help:Minor edit" but WP:CME has not been taken. I would recommend using that shortcut instead of WP:MN.

As far as incoming links, a change request can be made to WP:URLREQ for a bot to change previous WP:MN shortcut links to the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" to WP:CME. It is important to point out that the shortcut WP:MN has been used only 96 times since 2006. However the shortcuts WP:BAND, WP:MUSICBIO, & WP:SINGER each has been used thousands of times. Myotus (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: Unless there are other thoughts, the redirect from WP:MN will be changed from 'Notability (music)' to 'WikiProject Minnesota' changed in 10 days. Myotus (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Oppose~~ - as unnecessary. "MN" isn't particularly inherently interpreted as related to music. WP:NMUSIC existing is sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the question again, carefully. If anything your comment seems to mean support Imaginatorium (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Youre right, I read it backwards. Revised. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support (if weakly; a major problem facing the world at the moment is the inability of many Americans to understand anything about the world outside their borders, so "MN" has no particular immediate global significance). But a problem with WP, helping to discourage people like me from wanting to expend very much effort on it, is the mass of utterly opaque abbreviations, of which "MN" for "musical notability" is an excellent example. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it It's too short and ambigious to really intuitively know what it's supposed to mean. All incoming links that aim it to this place that Michael Bednarek pointed out can just be fixed with a little work, it appears from my quick check that there are 97 of those.★Trekker (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per StarTrekker. It could just as well refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mongols as Minnesota, referring to mn the country code of Mongolia. Given the lack of major usage and clear ambiguiity might as well ditch it. — Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Shortcuts being ambiguous is very common and not a problem. What is a problem is retargetting well-used shortcuts as this just causes confusion when one person refers to it (not necessarily linked) expecting it to still target the original location (how often do you check the targets of shortcuts you use frequently) at the same time as others refer to it expecting it to point at the new location. Editing long-closed discussions to change the target of redirects like this is disruptive makework. The incomming links for this redirect I spot check all clearly intend the current location. Deletion would just break things for no benefit to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Confusion on applying WP:GNG and WP:NSONG for album reviews

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.

Does WP:GNG allow for album reviews containing substantive, in-depth analysis to ground the notability of a song article, or does the categorical prohibition in WP:NSONG apply?

If a song article has substantive in-depth coverage across multiple reliable sources, but they are all album reviews, it can still be notable under WP:GNG despite plainly failing WP:NSONG. WP:NSONG should be modified to remove the prohibition on album reviews to establish notability, and refer to WP:SIGCOV.
A song being substantively covered across multiple reliably-sourced album reviews is not a sufficient basis for notability—a notable song should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. NSONG should be clarified as superseding GNG for songs.
No change is necessary and the current wording of WP:NSONG is sufficiently clear (please explain your rationale).

Flip^and Flopped ツ 17:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Recently, there has been a large influx of AfD nominations for songs on the basis that the article fails WP:NSONG, due to all sources cited being album reviews which analyze multiple songs from the same album, as opposed to focusing on the song individually.

WP:NSONG states the following: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". It also states explicitly states that "coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability".

WP:GNG states that an article is notable "if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". Flip^and Flopped ツ 17:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Option 2. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review is still coverage of an album—if a song is independently notable, then it will be the subject of in-depth coverage. Analogous to an episode of television in coverage of a season.

Songs that do not have significant coverage outside of the context of their albums should be covered on the Wikipedia page for their album, in reflection of how the song is treated in reliable sources (as an aspect of a notable album). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 Song reviews in the context of an album review are commentary on the album as a whole. Each and every song on an album doesn't need an article; we typically only have articles on songs that are in the "spotlight" so to speak, they've charted or are otherwise known by the general public due to some exposure (used in a movie, in some famous meme, at a sporting event). Oaktree b (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2. This should have been done a long time ago. But better later than never. Changes are needed and all songs to be notable should meet the criteria of WP:NSongs and not WP:GNG. As time goes by more and more songs can meet WP:GNG due to album reviews, but they still aren't able to fir under the criteria of WP:NSongs. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3:/Please reframe this RfC: Please review WP:RFCBRIEF and then rewrite this RfC so that it is neutrally phrased and concise. From the outset, this RfC frames the conflict as being between SIGCOV and NSONG, when really the issue here is that

Option 2: NSONG is talking about WP:NOPAGE; that is, a song should only get its own article when it has coverage outside the context of the album. We should not expand NSONG. Some editors view a single sentence in an album review as "significant coverage" of a song. ~~Option 2~~ Option 1 would mean that basically every song on every notable album would have an article so long as two or three album reviews discuss the song. It is better for our readers that those analyses be described in the album article rather than a separate page. ~~Additionally, adding a footnote to SIGCOV is unnecessary WP:CREEP. Not all of our notability guidelines are sufficiently clear, but NSONG is very clear on this point.~~ voorts (talk/contributions) 18:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may have mixed up your options, @Voorts ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NSONG is sufficiently clear that it is the type of SNG that overrides GNG, rather than merely supplements it: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. (emphasis added). Neither clarification nor a footnote to SIGCOV are required. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you say option 2 would have every song mentioned in a handful of album reviews get its own article, when that’s the opposite of what it suggests—that no song be determined notable based on album reviews. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts, and yet, at least one administrator has come to the exact opposite confusion and closed an AfD nomination per the precise oppposite rationale - see the AfD nomination I referenced. If you need more, I can supply more. That is not the only close which has used the rationale that WP:GNG applies over WP:NSONG. If it is confusing even for administrators, how will newcomers and users of medium-level experience like myself possibly understand it? Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One editor cited sources outside of album reviews in that discussion; I presume that's what @Tawker was referring to. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should really have a moratorium on adding new footnotes to the already bloated WP:N, but that's for a separate discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion on RFCNEUTRAL. Issues resolved. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this RfC shouldn’t frame a conflict between SIGCOV and NSONG, because the latter doesn’t even implicitly refer to the former. It’s really a conflict between GNG and NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flipandflopped, if you agree, you should amend the RfC to be about GNG and NSONG sooner rather than later, to avoid this RfC being inadmissible. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I changed the title, my apologies if it was not sufficiently neutral. Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries—I made an additional edit to clarify that this is about the relationship between NSONG and GNG, with SIGCOV being only a guiding principle to GNG and not a notability guideline. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flipandflopped: the issue is not just the title. RFCs are supposed to start with a neutrally-phrased question question, not with background and your opinions on the issue. Please read WP:RFCBRIEF. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to offer my opinion on the issue, I provided evidence that different AfD nominations have resulted in different outcomes. I thought that would help guide the discussion. I tried to be really careful not to give my opinion and state that I think there is genuine ambiguity. I am happy to amend the RFC, it is my first one and it was done in good faith. Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning your good faith. Evidence is something for the discussion, not the RfC statement. RfC statements should really just be a single question with simple options. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I understand. Would you like me to take out the middle section? I am happy to do so if, in your view, it will make the RFC more compliant with WP:RFCBRIEF. Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voorts, modifications made. Do you approve - and if so, can I collapse this discussion about the RFC structure in order to improve readability? Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should change the head to a simple question, without context, and move your context to a comment in the discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved things around. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 Option 2 is more or less how we handle things now generally, but I don't think this is a big enough issue to amend SIGCOV itself, which I'd more or less the "everything" notability guideline. I'm also not a big fan of any of the "never" type wording. There's always exceptions and strange situations. That doesn't leave any room for rare or IAR scenarios, and should be avoided. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73, the RFC has been amended to not refer to making changes to SIGCOV. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 I am confused by this RfC. I believe Option 1 "it can still be notable under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV despite plainly failing WP:NSONG" is the status quo of, and Option 2 "NSONG should be clarified to supersede GNG for songs" conflicts with, WP:N "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" (emphasis added).

There's nothing wrong with contradictory results in AfDs. As per WP:NMUSIC, "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. " Thus, according to the SNG itself (ie, NSONG), no article must be deleted because its only coverage comes from album reviews anyways. Each song is different. Some album reviews, or the combination of many album reviews, may discuss a song to the point where it would meet "significant coverage" while others may only mention the song in passing. Keep in mind that just because a song is discussed in album reviews doesn't alone mean a separate article is justified; if the only relevant content is from album reviews then the song article would likely never be long enough to warrant its own article. Heartfox (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of the RFC is that many editors disagree with your statement that Option 1 is the status quo, including most of the voters above you. If I have fudged this RFC with confusing voting options by having an Option 3, I sincerely apologize and I will invite someone else to remake it. Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, according to the SNG itself (ie, NSONG), no article must be deleted because its only coverage comes from album reviews anyways. The issue here isn't a conflict with GNG/SIGCOV. The language I quoted above from NSONG makes clear that just album reviews doesn't meet WP:NOPAGE. SNGs also routinely override GNG. The most clear example is that NCORP overrides GNG; a corporation flat out can't be notable if it fails NCORP. My view of current consensus is that NOPAGE is a sufficient reason to merge and delete an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If "SNGs also routinely override GNG", isn't that flatly contradictory to the statement in GNG that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if [...] It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)"? (emphasis added). The "or" implies that it can be either GNG or NSONG, and substantive, indepth analysis of a song across, say, a NYT, Billboard, and Vanity Fair album review would probably meet WP:GNG. Flip^and Flopped ツ 19:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 is what I lean towards, for the record. Largely per the rationale of Heartfox above, I agree that Some album reviews, or the combination of many album reviews, may discuss a song to the point where it would meet "significant coverage". However, the current statement in WP:NSONG uses absolute language which leads editors to the conclusion that even substantive, in-depth analysis which is sometimes more detailed than the level of analysis in a stand-alone news article, can never be used to ground notability simply because it comes from an article that reviews other songs from the same album as well as the song in question. Clarifying WP:NSONG in this regard by just getting rid of that statement and letting editors assess whether the album review coverage is sufficiently substantive to meet WP:GNG on a case-by-case basis would be better. Flip^and Flopped ツ 19:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree editors interpreting NSONG as absolute is wrong. However, there is nothing that needs to be changed IMO because NSONG itself, via the lead of the article WP:NMUSIC, already says the language isn't absolute: "these are rules of thumb". If editors would acknowledge that wording in the lead, preceding NSONG, then there would be less confusion I think. Heartfox (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox, The unfortunate reality is that most of the time, AfD nominations as well as vote rationales simply link to WP:NSONG, so voters are not reading that caveat up at the top of the lead. See e.g. LoveDrug's AfD nom, where multiple voters stated "no depth of coverage from those (album reviews) can compensate for failing notability criteria in WP:NSONG". Eliminating the "absolute language" about album reviews not being capable of grounding notability clears up the confusion, especially because, per your point, that isn't even categorically true anyways. Flip^and Flopped ツ 19:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. I agree with Flipandflopped. A song can have substantive in-depth coverage in album reviews, track rankings, and books/academic sources that discuss the artist's discography (discussing and analyzing each track individually), ultimately meeting WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". This should be assesed carefully and on a case-by-case basis. WP:NSONG should be modified to reflect WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, in my opinion. Medxvo (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

track rankings, and books/academic sources that discuss the artist's discography (discussing and analyzing each track individually) would meet NSONG. All NSONG says is that if the only significant coverage is in the context of album reviews, then a song shouldn't have it's own article per WP:NOPAGE. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To give more context, Voorts, Medxvo and Zanahary have had a disagreement across a couple of AfD nominations about whether or not a book which analyzes all of the songs in an album in depth (in this case, Folklore (Taylor Swift album)) is functionally an "album review". There is also the contention that "track rankings" and "album review" are one and the same (a track ranking just being, a review of the album which is structured so as to rank each song from first to last in terms of preference). Flip^and Flopped ツ 19:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a track ranking is just ranking tracks on a particular album, that's basically an album review. If it's ranking tracks across an artist's discography, I think that could be SIGCOV outside of the context of an album review. I'm not sure what book is being referred to, but if a book goes through an artist's entire discography, I would think that counts as not being analogous to an album review. In any event, those disagreements are related to how to interpret the guideline and is not sufficient reason to completely nuke it. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, again, the issue here is really about NOPAGE. That seems to be what the contested sentence in NSONG is referring to. There's clearly enough to write about Hoax (song) such that its coverage in the album article would be UNDUE. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of Hoax's notability, but the contested sentence in WP:NSONG uses wording which implies it is an absolute rule (i.e. by saying saying "does not establish" as opposed to "does not necessarily establish notability"). This results in the situation where Hoax (song) technically fails WP:NSONG if WP:NSONG is read in isolation from our other policies, because all of the footnoted sources are articles where Hoax is analyzed in conjunction with one or more other songs from the same album. A well-written policy should not lead casual readers to the wrong outcome in this manner. Flip^and Flopped ツ 20:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A well-written policy should not lead casual readers to the wrong outcome in this manner. None of our policies are well-written, nor do casual readers of the encyclopedia even know they exist. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No policy/guideline should be read in isolation. If people are doing that, then you should point that out. IAR/common sense override all other PAGs. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NSONG and SIGCOV seemed contradictory to me, to Flipandflopped, and perhaps to several other users. A discussion and RfC were very much needed in my opinion, so thanks, Flipandflopped. Medxvo (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an RFC is a good idea. What I'm saying is that there's no contradiction between SIGCOV and NSONG. NSONG is making a point about when to create an independent article, rather than covering a song in the context of the album article. If there's a lot to write about an individual song, it should generally have an article. If a song has a couple of two sentence reviews in the context of album reviews, that would technically be SIGCOV, but creating a stub article about the song is less useful to readers than summarizing those two reviews in the reception section of the album article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, but unfortunately that's not how several users interpret NSONG. That's why a clarification at NSONG might be needed (which is what option 1 is all about, I think). Medxvo (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 would make it so that basically every song on every notable album gets its own article. A prohibition makes it clear that it should be the rare case that an individual song gets its own article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 says that the song received "substantive in-depth coverage across multiple reliable sources" within the album reviews. Not every song would meet this threshold; not every song on a notable album receives in-depth coverage within album reviews. That's why such things should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion. Medxvo (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In-depth coverage" is just another way of saying SIGCOV, and as we all know, the community generally has a pretty low bar for what constitutes "significant", such that two reviews each having two sentences of approximately 50-100 words in length about a song would probably meet GNG. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this AfD discussions, where Zanahary thought they don't meet NSONG. Medxvo (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 is best. Since many folks don't seem to fully acknowledge how album reviews are insufficient on their own to establish song notability, I'm inclined to think this should be have more emphasis, which makes Option 3 faulty. Option 1 is misguided at best and overly lenient as not every song from an album warrants pages (no matter how much some people might wish otherwise). We have article-specific notability criteria for good reason, and shouldn't just toss those aside. Zanahary and Oaktree b also make good points that I wholeheartedly agree with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. If a song has sufficient coverage to meet GNG then it is notable, regardless of where that coverage is located. This is not to say that every such song is best covered in a stand-alone article but it makes no sense to prohibit that being the case. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IAR always exists. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it comes off as a cheap cop-out to invoke IAR for keeping pages and too often is abused as a means of getting one's way for things, I will say that I very rarely (if ever) have seen album reviews give much depth to specific songs going beyond a cumulative paragraph. They more often get a few sentences at most before a reviewer shifts focus towards other tracks. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS Do you know of, and could you link to, examples of where WP:IAR has actually been "abused as a means of getting one's way for things"? I hardly ever see it invoked personally. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Voorts seemingly trying above to suggest it as a way to keep pages, I cannot recall any specific instances for songs per se, though the first music-related instance that comes to my mind is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTPOP where one vote dubiously attempted to use that as a rationale for keeping that pandered to fan editors. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant more broadly across Wikipedia too, not just for songs per se. Thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1, we need not be overly pedantic here, and option 1 ensures the greater range of inclusion that I personally generally would like to favor. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4—only remove "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability" from the guideline. The premise of "Option 1" ("If a song article has substantive in-depth coverage across multiple reliable sources, but they are all album reviews, it can still be notable under WP:GNG despite plainly failing WP:NSONG.") is the current norm, which is stated explicitly in the global guideline on notability. WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The following content in this guideline states how WP:NOPAGE should be applied to songs: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. One part of it is badly formulated, however: The first sentence is redundant and veers into seemingly restricting the scope of application of GNG, basically going off-topic. It is also pointedly redundant. GNG does not and should not be held to apply to songs in some special way; it is a general standard for a reason. What I quoted should read: If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created (with the link to NOPAGE). Simply remove the first sentence. Same intended message, no confusion.
This is the point: Even some songs that are notable under WP:GNG because of significant coverage they have received, and receiving a certain kind and volume of coverage as part of an album review can be significant coverage, don't get to have a stand-alone article, because the carveout from notability in the form of NOPAGE should be applied in a certain way here, to the benefit of the reader. Notability states that it is a standard used to determine what topics are eligible for a stand-alone article, but the very same guideline on notability states that in some cases notable topics should not be covered in stand-lone articles; this is a seeming contradiction in terms, but really it not, because notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. A song being notable is not a guarantee the song will necessarily be covered separately from the album, on a stand-alone page. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.—Alalch E. 21:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Diff/1284152844 in relation to this comment. —Alalch E. 22:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 because (unlike the issue with promotionalism that causes us to be stricter than GNG in WP:NBUSINESS) I don't see that there is a problem in need of fixing here. Do we really have many articles on songs that have significant depth of coverage but where that coverage is limited to album reviews, and what problem does having such articles raise? It is apparent from discussion here that there is significant disagreement over what our notability guideline actually says, so I think both option 1 and option 2 would be preferable to the status quo (option 3) so that we have clear rules, but I prefer the more inclusive side of those rules. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From experience: yes, we have many, many such articles. But it’s fair to consider this to be preferable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that while the coverage is borderline significant, i.e. the passes the treshold on a technicality, the fact that the song hasn't received stand-alone coverage correlates extremely well with the reader being better served by the song being only covered in the context of an album on Wikipedia. If the reliable sources only cover it in the context of an album, so should Wikipedia, because it's better for the reader, and when something is done opposite to what's the best for the reader, we have a problem. —Alalch E. 22:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m in agreement with you, @Alalch E. Would you support an amendment to NSONG that reflects or refers to the relevant passage in NOPAGE? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please see Special:Diff/1267374938/1284154591 (in other words, the guideline already literally says it when it says "should not be created"). —Alalch E. 22:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]