User:NegativeMP1/Charting does not establish notability

Note: This essay is refers to Wikipedia:Notability (music) as it was as of this revision on July 17, 2025. So, if NMUSIC is ever updated to the point where this essay is somehow outdated, you will know why.

When discussing the notability of musical works, it is frequently interpreted that a recording appearing on a national music chart either contributes towards notability, or makes the recording automatically notable and warrant a satandalone page. Most of the time, these arguments will cite WP:NSONG and WP:NALBUM, which include music charts as part of a 'criteria' regarding notability. Some may argue that charting substitutes the need for meeting the general notability guideline, or even the need for sources at all. And while a recording charting can certainly help, arguments that they automatically make a recording notable are a misinterpretation of notability policies and demonstrably false. This essay explains and clears up these misconceptions, and clarifies what the notability policies actually mean.

Explanation

"Too Far Gone?" is a song by Metallica (pictured) that was released as a single and reached number one on the Mainstream Rock chart. Despite this, it was still ruled as non-notable (as of 2026), because it lacked significant coverage in reliable sources and charting does not automatically make a recording notable.

NALBUM goes to the all-around 'Recording' section of Wikipedia:Notability (music), which will be the main focus of things here. NSONG technically has its own section, but it mainly goes back to the points made by NALBUM, though obviously with some differences and a couple of extra things that only apply to songs. Regardless of the distinction between the two and the fact that this essay will refer to NALBUM, everything here also applies to Songs.

NALBUM contains a list of criteria that may indicate a recording is notable. Among other things, part of these criteria is whether or not the song appeared on a national music chart. At first glance, it may seem reasonable to think that this is a list of things that make a recording notable, and many deletion discussions will have votes that argue something is notable solely for charting. However, in the introduction to this list, it states that "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria". It clearly states that it is a list of things that may make a recording notable, not that they do make a recording notable. What this is truly referring to is that a song which has charted might have higher chances of being notable—as in, higher odds of being discussed by sources. And those sources are what make the song notable, not the charting in of itself. Assuming that the source is significant coverage, at least.

Carrying on, the very beginning of the NALBUM section states that "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Therefore, it should be clear that, even if something charts, the general notability guideline is the ultimate factor on whether a recording is notable or not. This is further exemplified by the SNGs (which NMUSIC obviously is) section at the main Wikipedia:Notability page: "Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia". For music, coverage in reliable sources is still necessary to justify a standalone article.

For some more points, here's the following:

1. Among Wikipedia's most important policies is Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which every article is expected to be built off of and is where information is expected to be taken from. A recording charting, no matter how significant, cannot overwrite this basic Wikipedia principle. To argue that a song is automatically notable and warrants a standalone article because it charted, regardless of coverage in sources, is not a constructive stance.
2. Even if NALBUM was a list of things that a recording must meet to qualify for an article, criterion #1 is still "the recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it".
3. Another consideration is this line from NALBUM: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography." The only way there can be enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article is if significant coverage in reliable sources exists.
4. Some editors may argue that the "may" part of NMUSIC actually means "may be kept", but this does not work because it relies on deliberately neglecting what NMUSIC actually says as a whole and all other logic. It is no different than an "it's just notable" comment.

Regarding songs

A song meeting notability criteria does not guarantee that it will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the question of whether to create standalone pages about individual notable songs is subject to editorial judgment. This decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable. Sometimes, notable songs can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. At other times, several related notable songs can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each covered separately. Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

— WP:NSONG

"What about songs?" Short answer: everything in this essay applies to songs in the exact same way that it does to albums. Long answer:

NSONG technically features it's own standalone page indicators from NALBUM, one that actually goes beyond notability. Focusing on notability though, NSONG opens up with the following statement: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have received significant coverage as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". When it gets to listing the "criteria" of notability indicators that charting is a part of, it also states, "A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful".

And yes, a song may be more likely to be discussed in sources if it charted, won a major award, or was covered by several other notable artists. But this does not supersede the need for sources, nor can it be used as a "sources must exist!" argument. Sources which discuss the subject are required to establish notability. And thus, once again, the general notability guideline still determines whether a song is notable enough for an article or not in the end.

I'd also like to point towards the full extended text of what NSONG says about standalone song articles. It says, in clear, that songs deemed "notable" may still be merged if there's not enough to them to justify split out and/or they are better off covered somewhere else. We call this WP:PAGEDECIDE, something arguably as relevant as notability. But, for something to warrant a standalone page even if due to size or coverage reasons, then there still needs to be sources that discuss it. If no sources exist that discuss a subject in a meaningful way, then Wikipedia likely shouldn't dedicate a page to it either. And this includes songs. That's not to say it can't be covered somewhere at all though; likewise, deletion of a song is not erasure of the subject off of Wikipedia.

Further applications

What about certifications or awards?

Like music charts, certifications and awards are included on a list of things that could mean a subject is notable. If a recording is that distinguished, then the chances of reliable sources discussing it are very high. Especially if it's a major award or a multi-Platinum certification. But, similarly to charting, they do not on their own establish notability or justify a standalone article—the sources do. And if the sources don't exist, then neither should the article. There are many recordings, or subjects in general, which have been distinguished like this that still may not satisfy notability guidelines or have enough written about them to justify a standalone page.

What about any of the other criteria at NMUSIC?

I'm going to stray away from the central argument here regarding charting and focus on the other "criteria" that NMUSIC lists and why they're equally as irrelevant, to further establish that there is no circumventing a sourcing requirement. The other criteria that NMUSIC lists for recordings are criterion #5 ("The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc."), #6 ("The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."), and #7 ("The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.").

Criteria #5 and #6 could easily be interpreted as "a song may be notable if it exists". While I doubt that was the actual logic that went into it, it is about as reasonable of a stance as criteria #2 (appearing on any chart) making a song automatically notable... as in both are unreasonable. #7 is just a way of saying something got covered in sources. Most radio stations or television networks are probably reliable sources. If a recording got an entire feature on those platforms or their associated website, then that clearly contributes towards notability.

Do certifications or charts help at all?

While the whole point of this essay is demonstrating that a recording charting or receiving a certification is not enough to establish notability, this is not to say that a certification (or charts) do not help whatsoever. If notability is already established through other means and the page already warrants existence, then certifications or charting could reasonably be used as additional arguments—assuming they are not the only argument being used. An argument for ruling out a recording as notable should not rest entirely upon these things, but they can help, especially in edge cases.

Does a recording need to have charted to be notable?

No, it does not. A recording is notable if enough coverage on it, specifically, exists to warrant a separate article, independent from the album, artist, etc. Also applies with certifications or awards or whatever else.

Summary

In summary, a recording charting cannot establish notability on its own. Not only does NMUSIC/NSONG/NALBUM itself state this, but the idea of a charting or other performance indicator automatically making something notable is not reasonable in practice. And while it may certainly be helpful, especially for edge cases or older songs, it should not be the only factor used to demonstrate notability. Sources that discuss the subject in sufficient detail are still required for a recording to have its own article.