Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

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

This standard needs rewriting

The first criterion for musicians and ensembles, the one about the need for secondary, independent sources, is supposedly disqualified by the following exception:

"Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising."

From my recent experience, editors are interpreting "where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording" as applying to any article anywhere that contains a quote from the musician. I've had a reviewer flat-out say that any article with a quote in it loses its independence. This strikes me as counterproductive to Wikipedia's aims and frankly incoherent to the way journalism works, cultural journalism in particular.

Obviously, per Wikipedia's standards, a quote from the subject, be it in interview or other form, should not be the sole basis for facts stated in a Wiki entry, but the notion that a quote disqualifies an article as independent is just ridiculous. Any sixth grade school newspaper intro class will teach that a journalist's job is to at least attempt to speak to their subject. In cultural journalism, nearly every feature article lives or dies on the writer's ability to get access to artists, unless the context is a hit-piece, expose, or review.

This standard should be rewritten to better reflect what I believe is, or should be, its intended stipulation, which is to disqualify sources that are published by or in partnership with the musician or their directly partnering businesses.

FogleMorplethorpe b (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2026 (ET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FogleMorplethorpe (talk • contribs)

• I certainly agree with this proposal. It was placed out of order in the table of contents, which may hurt its visibility, but I have also noticed some people, especially at AfD, mistaking editorial journalism that includes quotations/interviews for promo press. Chubbles (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

• A fundamental problem is that the policy was written at a time when cultural journalism was significantly different, with considerably more journalistic freedom for journalists. Currently, independent reporting, especially of individual artists, is increasingly rare on major platforms. There's a cycle where both artists (or their representatives) reach out to try to be featured and reporters try to get interview pieces to try to attain greater notability either for themselves or for the publication wherein they work. Even seemingly independent articles aren't above suspicion, as we've seen the likes of Geese employ unethical publicists who astroturf to hell and back. There's no easy solution to any of this and it'll probably always be mainly a rich kids' club, but we do need some approach that doesn't fundamentally punish those who can't afford digital payolas.--~2026-32512-46 (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Anchors

I would like propose a comprehensive approach to anchors to numbered items on this page. I'd like to make it easier to refer to these in discussions! For those interested, please comment on this thread. Thanks! WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Anchor proposal by section (current shortcuts in parentheses):

• Criteria for musicians and ensembles (WP:BAND, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SINGER)
  Proposal 1: Use #M for music/ian, so #M1 through #M12.

• Individual members, reality television performers (WP:BANDMEMBER, WP:REALITYBIO, WP:REALITYSINGER)
  Proposal 2: Use #I for individual, so #I1 through #I2.

• Criteria for composers and lyricists (WP:COMPOSER)
  Proposal 3: Use #C for composer, so #C1 through #C6.
• Others (WP:NMUSICOTHER)
  Proposal 4: Use #O for other, so #O1 through #O5.
• Recordings (WP:NALBUMS, WP:NALBUM)
  Proposal 5: Use #R for recordings, so #R1 through R7.

• Albums (No shortcuts)
• Singles (No shortcuts)
• Unreleased material (WP:UNRELEASED)
• Future material (WP:FUTUREALBUM, WP:FUTUREALBUMS)

• Songs (WP:NSONG, WP:NSINGLE)
  Proposal 6: Use #S for songs, so #S1 through #S3.

• Covers (WP:NCOVER)

• Concert tours (WP:NCONCERT, WP:NTOUR)
• Resources (No shortcuts)
• If the subject is not notable (WP:SUBNOT)

@Atlantic306: would you like to collaborate on this? WidgetKid ^{chat me} 22:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

bit busy at present, but I will check back next week, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Criteria 1 is in the wrong place. It should start from the previous sentence. For some reason it is in the correct place in the edit source but not on the page. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It is in the right place using a computer and on a mobile phone but not on my ipad, ~2026-87982-5 (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC) (Atanic306 not signed in)

I think all the current criteria are in the wrong places - or rather, they should be changed to proposal above. When I initially added #C1-C12 (to WP:BAND), I wasn't taking into account the other sections with shortcuts and numbered criteria. What do you think about the proposal? WidgetKid ^{this is the way} 20:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not against it but i'd like to see some more feedback, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• As there hasn't been much feedback perhaps you could make this an RFC and also advertise it at Village Pump proposals? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NSINGLE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:NSINGLE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 19 § Wikipedia:NSINGLE until a consensus is reached. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

What's the use of this page if we're all gonna use WP:GNG instead?

WP:SNGs such as these are only useful if these are excepted into WP:GNG. If it is not excepted, it's not useful in citing this in AFDs, and can only lead to confusion. Either this SNG is treated as an exception, or is removed entirely. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck in a previous discussion where I proposed to eliminating these it was made clear that these are indeed an exemption to GNG.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

What supposedly were the exceptions? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Howard the Duck I misremembered, I was thinking of WP:NBAND.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Alter the text of WP:NALBUM

The Recording section here is exceptionally confusing. The text states 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. and then gives a list of 7 criteria that may indicate the article is notable. In practice, this has led to users arguing in AfD that satisfying 1 or more of the 7 criteria allows an album to bypass WP:GNG, which is the opposite of what the text states. I would argue this means the text is not clear enough. I would either delete the list of 7 factors that MAY indicate reliability, or else change the text before the list to "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria. However, satisfying one or more of the following criteria does not prove notability if the article subject does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources (see WP:GNG)." Boynamedsue (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NALBUM is not confusing at all. The proposer just does not like WP:NALBUM actually says. The objective of this proposal is to shift the goalposts at AfD in order to make it easier to delete more articles. In particular, the objective of this proposal is to abolish the guidelines WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:ARTN and the requirement for WP:BEFORE, and to remove the obligation for nominators to conduct a search of paywalled sources, and to conduct a search of offline paper sources for pre-internet albums that are likely to have significant coverage in old offline newspapers and magazines. I see no reason to do that. We should not delete articles just because editors don't want to pay subscriptions to online newspaper archives, buy old magazines from second-hand sites, or go to a library to search microformed newspapers etc. The fact that editors do not want to pay their own money to search for sources is not a reason to delete anything. Even worse is the proposal to abolish ARTN and make notability dependent on article content. That seeks to remove the obligation for nominators to conduct a search of freely available online sources. That would be very disruptive. James500 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  @James500 is there context here that I missing? Because I don't see where the proposing editor is saying that there is no obligation for editors to check to see if there are sources covering the subject before arguing for deletion.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  I was under the impression that adding the words "satisfying one or more of the following criteria does not prove notability if the article does not have significant coverage" (my emphasis) to the guideline would abolish any requirement for the nominator to search for sources.

  I was also under the impression that the purpose of the seven criteria in NALBUM is to provide a temporary safety cushion, in cases where albums are likely to have significant coverage in paywalled or offline sources. (This would be an example of coverage known to exist offline). I was under the impression that deleting the seven criteria would remove that cushion. James500 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  I concur with that.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:21, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

If two people can disagree in good faith, then the guideline is confusing. In a recent deletion discussion, you stated No, the introduction to WP:N says a topic is presumed to merit an article if it satisfies NALBUM. And you have not rebutted that presumption., whereas three other users in the same discussion referenced NALBUM to say it should be turned into a redirect, one even having written an essay on the topic.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS, I do not think you should link to an AfD that has not finished yet. I think you should wait until it is over. Until then I do not think any of us can comment on this here without violating WP:CANVASS. James500 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, the AfD has been closed as keep, and I do not think that close is going to be challenged. I should point out that you are quoting out of context in way that is misleading, because throughout that AfD I argued that the album satisfied GNG, and that the album had already been proved to satisfy GNG by the sources already cited in the article, and because criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM is GNG, and a topic is presumed to merit an article if it satisfies GNG. Since the imaginary disagreement you allege above never actually happened, it cannot be evidence the guideline is confusing. James500 (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue "However, satisfying one or more of the following criteria does not prove notability if the article does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources"

GNG doesn't have that requirement. What you are proposing here is even stricter than GNG. GNG requires that the notability of the subject be verifiable, not that these sources have to be cited.

And I previously have suggested eliminating the NALBUM special notability guidelines. The consensus was that perhaps some of them should be revised but that the guidelines as a whole should still exist. Yes, NALBUMS bypass the general notability guidelines, hence why they are "special" notability guidelines.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not, I don't see how the text I introduce requires sources to be cited on the article, merely that they exist, and can be demonstrated when requested. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The inclusion of the words "if the article does not have significant coverage" (my emphasis) would certainly require the coverage to be cited in the article. It would be different if you had written "if the topic does not have significant coverage", but that is not what you wrote. James500 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You are quite correct, that was a mistake. I've struck out "article" and replaced it with "subject".--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I need to issue a correction here: It was NBAND that I proposed altering, and the community rejected that. Albums do need to meet GNG.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NALBUM allows articles on historical non-English albums that charted. For albums, true GNG standards are almost never attainable because reviews are basically opinion pieces whose factual reliability is questionable (WP:RSOPINION). Appeal to them is no less a special pleading than an appeal to charts. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Opinion pieces are perfectly fine for establishing importance, which is what notability is about.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:22, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also, many albums have coverage in books and magazines that isn't merely reviews.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  If notability is of importance, then charting also can establish it. I agree that coverage in magazines/books is acceptable for GNG, but many albums don't have it. And we must rely on reviews for establishing notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Kelob2678 about reviews, per WP:GNG, we need reliable secondary sources, and opinion is primary. According to WP:RS Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces. Most reviews in newspapers or magazines are clearly not scholarly pieces, so I feel an exception for reviews like that which exists in WP:NBOOK would be useful here. In practice, this exists. Very few albums are songs are not, in reality, sourced to reviews and it's rarely challenged.

I totally disagree about charting. Many, perhaps most, songs and albums that have charted are not notable enough for their own article.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviews are independent reliable secondary sources that contain significant coverage. Charts are independent reliable secondary sources. James500 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean, they are clearly not, per WP:RS. I've cited the guideline above. This is why WP:NBOOK created an exception to WP:GNG for reviews. We should also do that here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviews aren't OP/ED. They are music journalism. Your interpretation of WP:RS here is novel.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

In WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces." So it's contextually dependent.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

"opinion is primary." It's not primary unless it's someone closely affiliated with the subject. It's secondary, by definition. Might still not be reliable coverage, but it would be secondary as a source.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Reply to Boynamedsue: WP:RS says that a review is a primary source for the biography of the reviewer who wrote the review. It says that if John Q Musiccritic writes lots of album reviews, those album reviews do not make John Q Musiccritic notable because they are not secondary coverage of John Q Musiccritic. To put it another way, being a primary source for the reviewer's opinion is not the same as being a primary source for the album he is reviewing. Because the reviewer's opinion about the album is not the album. The reviwer's opinion is a thought in the reviewer's head, whereas an album is a disk made of PVC. A thought in someone's head is not the same thing as a PVC disk. James500 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Those are your personal interpretations, but you have not supported it with any evidence, and it is explicitly contradicted by WP:RS. Both myself and Kelob have stated the view that opinion articles are not secondary sources, and -3family6 has recognised at least that WP:RS makes it ambiguous. This kind of wording is why WP:NBOOK carves out an exception for reviews which is specifically cited in WP:N. I would try something similar here, but this is not really the topic of this discussion so I don't think consensus is necessary here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

No, opinion pieces are secondary sources. Primary sources are sources by the subject of the article themselves. And WP:RS makes no claim otherwise.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I think there's an opportunity for additional clarity here. The first question to answer is whether WP:GNG applies to articles about recordings. My interpretation of this has been that WP:GNG applies, but I can see how there is a circular logic reference at play:

1. WP:N says subject must meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG.
2. The WP:SNG WP:NALBUMS then refers back to WP:N.

...and around and around we go. WidgetKid ^Converse 19:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the key word in WP:N is "presumption". I think that what the guidelines really say at the moment is something like "A recording that meets at least one the seven numbered criteria of WP:NALBUM should be presumed to have received significant coverage, unless and until someone actually proves that the recording has not received significant coverage, by conducting a sufficiently exhaustive search for coverage of that album, including a search of all paywalled and offline sources that could be reasonably suspected to contain significant coverage of that recording". James500 (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Except that is not what the guideline says, the word presumption does not appear. The guideline uses the word "may be notable" not "should be presumed to be notable". If it did say that, there would be no problem. Your interpretation of the guideline is an extrapolation from the text that contains several extra steps which cannot be reasonably assumed to be the intention of the writer. If your understanding is indeed the consensus of the community, then the text must be changed to reflect that.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The word "presumption" appears in the introduction to WP:N, which is part of the guidelines. Further, the guideline WP:SNG says "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". The guidelines say that if a topic passes one of the seven criteria of WP:NALBUM, it is presumed to satisfy GNG. That is the purpose of those criteria. James500 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the word "may" expresses possibility in this context, it cannot have any other meaning with a stative verb.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This interpretation can only be maintained by first cherry picking the guidelines by ignoring parts of them, and then construing the word "may" to have a narrower and more specific meaning than it actually has in the context. James500 (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Please take this as a response to both the above replies. I'm afraid that's not a coherent position. Above, you yourself recognise that it is possible that an article may pass one of the 7 points and yet still fail WP:GNG and so not merit a standalone article. The guidelines are very clear 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. The modal verb "may" has 2 clear meanings in the English language, one is for possibility the other is for permission , . In the phrase Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria there is no possibility that the verb has another meaning than "might", as for it to reflect permission would require an action to be permitted, and no action is present in the sentence. Therefore, there is no rule here that could be considered to supplant WP:GNG as part of WP:SNG. The presumption of notability by satisfying a specific guideline in a WP:SNG cannot apply, because there is in effect, no prescription here, simply an observation on the type of source that might be notable.

In any case, there is likely need for an RfC here. The fact this argument is occurring, and every contributor has had a slightly different take on what the text means, shows the language is unclear. As WidgetKid correctly observed, there is significant circularity in the two guidelines. I'm not particularly bothered if the new guideline is closer to your interpretation of the text or mine, but it surely must change one way or the other. It's a chocolate fireguard at the minute.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are not legislation. They are not drafted with the kind of precision that would allow you to draw inferences from subtle variations in their wording. If you are trying to apply something like the pari materia rule to the wording of a guideline, you are over-interpreting that guideline. The fact this guideline uses the word "may" instead of "presumed" means *nothing*, because this is not legislation drafted with the kind of precision that would make such variation in wording relevant. WP:NOTLAW says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles." In this case the principles are the ones set out in WP:SNG. James500 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

That's how I would understand it, although there's also community support for NMUSIC being a true SNG and not needing to meet GNG.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I do believe that NMusic should follow a strict policy and set of rules in order to create articles. It would exempt it from GNG and other guidelines, which makes some articles exist just because of GNG. Too much is written about music online, which leads to that. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with exempting albums from GNG in exchange for something stricter. What is the problem with articles existing that are supported as being notable by multiple reliable sources?

I need to correct myself: It's NBAND that specifically is exempted from GNG - albums and songs still need to meet GNG, and the guidelines are indicators that the requisite sources likely exist.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I am unsure about whether or not to support the current proposal. But, NMUSIC is already quite clear that something charting does not automatically make it notable if sources discussing the subject do not exist (and I have an essay explaining it here). The misconception that charting allows articles to bypass WP:GNG and WP:V is a bizarre one that people came up with on their own, because NMUSIC clearly doesn't support it and never should. WP:GNG overrules NSONG anyways and it always will: "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". So if significant sourcing on a song doesn't exist, then neither should an article dedicated to it. That's my two cents. λ NegativeMP1 04:45, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that is not, but most users think "it charted, therefore relevant". That rule must made way more clear´, mainly nowadays. ~~~ MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the !vote "it charted, so it shouldn't be deleted per WP:NALBUM/NSONG" is really common, and there's no basis for that in policy, yet it is rarely challenged by closers.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think this vote has no basis in policy? The typical way to negate SNG is to argue that they are only presumptions which can be rebutted if no sources after an extensive search are found. Practically this is meaningless, because those who insist on GNG almost never conduct such an extensive search, which means they cannot rebut the presumption. Kelob2678 (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Because the guideline specifically says that charting is not enough to ensure notability and nowhere in the guideline is it said that charting creates a presumption of notability. I'm thinking of doing an RfC where one option is the confusing status quo, another option adds the presumption of notability that you and James500 interpret but which others do not see, and another specifies that the 7 points in WP:NALBUM are merely indicative that something might be notable but subsidiary to WP:GNG, which is several other people's interpretation of the text.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

So what is the point of the 7 points, according to you? I will say again that the typical pro-GNG line is to say that SNGs only indicate when the sourcing is available (i.e., they are just a clarification to WP:NEXIST). But even if we accept this interpretation (regardless of whether the word "presumption" is used anywhere), it still doesn't mean that the article cannot be kept, because to rebut WP:NEXIST, one should identify a list of sources that could cover the subject and check them to determine that such coverage is absent. This check never happens, therefore, appeals to NEXIST stand and are a legitimate reason to support a Keep outcome. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It is simply indicative. If it were more than this, it would not use the word "may". Now, if you are right that this is the spirit of the text, then it needs changing. If two groups of users can have completely contradictory understandings of the same text in good faith, it is badly written. Like I said, I will probably put this to an RfC with three options. My first preference will be a text that clarifies that there is nothing special about charting and the list of 7 points is merely illustrative. My second will likely be for text that supports your point of view, as the text as it stands is simply not fit for purpose.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd support an RfC, as the references are indeed circular. I'll note that charting might support a band article, per NBAND. That SNG is a true exception to GNG, as was confirmed when I proposed altering that text a few years ago. However, NALBUM explicitly states that it is not an exception to GNG but instead a list of indicators that a recording might meet GNG.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue, I'd love to help with framing that up if you'd like another set of eyes & hands. WidgetKid ^Converse 19:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

@Widgetkid: yeah, that would be great.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd support a RfC on this. Maybe an option to put a footnote that states charting does not automatically confer notability. We are running into the same issues with WP:NFF (see that talk page). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I think an RfC would probably be a waste of community time. I do not believe that it would be likely to produce an outcome that would justify the amount of community time that it would consume. James500 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

An option that "specifies that the 7 points in WP:NALBUM are merely indicative that something might be notable" would have the effect of abolishing GNG, because criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM is GNG. James500 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

How would it abolish GNG? NALBUM is just an indicator that something is notable, not that it "is" notable.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The effect would be that the revised text of NALBUM would say that GNG is just an indicator that something is notable (and that GNG carries no more weight than the following six criteria). James500 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

We may be talking about different things. I am referring to putting a footnote that states charting does not confer notability. That would not negate GNG. In fact, it strengthens that GNG is applicable.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

We are talking about different things. I am not talking about your proposed footnote, which would not affect GNG. I am talking about the wording proposed by Boynamedsue. James500 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

My apologies then as I fucked up the entire thread. lol For the record, I think we just need clarification and not a rewrite of the guideline. Although an RfC would be a good route. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of comments that treat a song as notable automatically simply because it charted, even if sourcing does not exist. Assuming that nobody performs any sort of source check when nominating an article for deletion or voting for its removal is a bad faith assumption, and definitely doesn't give reason to keep an article on a subject that lacks significant coverage. When I nominate something for deletion or vote in an AfD, I almost always do a quick source check + analyze what is in the article at present unless the deletion reason is miscellaneous (e.g. WP:NOPAGE). Since I regularly participate in music AfDs, this feels like a bad faith generalization of my and multiple others votes. This also begs the question, are you checking for sources? Because, when you vote based on WP:NEXIST and the idea that other editors don't put care into looking for sources, then you should probably try to prove sources exist in the first place rather than doing the same thing you criticize other editors for. Basically, see WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST.

The seven criteria are a list of things that could indicate a subject may be notable, not that it automatically is. If you want to take these seven points as something that makes an article automatically notable, it's quite an unreasonable stance. One of the "notability criteria" at NMUSIC is basically just asking "was the song released"? (Criteria #6: "The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network"). Would we automatically assume any single ever released is automatically notable and deserves an article? No, of course not, that's down to the sourcing. λ NegativeMP1 16:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of music released is never played on the radio or on music TV networks, so that criteria is empathetically not "was it released" Katzrockso (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

True, but I did specify "any single". Maybe could've been more clear but the argument I'm making still stands. λ NegativeMP1 16:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

My point is that under the assumption that the SNG is a clarification of NEXIST, the burden to analyze sources is on those who want to rebut the presumption of notability. I've almost never seen an AfD in which the pro-delete side did this convincingly, usually, they just ask the pro-SNG side to produce the said sources, shifting the burden on them as if the SNG doesn't exist. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't follow. The burden to demonstrate a subject's notability falls equally on those who argue for deletion or retention. Also, there's been times where you voted to keep an article based solely on charting even there was definitively and demonstrably no SIGCOV . Your comments here versus there don't even seem compatible (your argument there was ". I understand the word 'notable' as 'has a standalone page', and read the phrase "may be notable" as 'may be kept'", which quite literally is an argument that charting automatically makes something notable enough for a standalone page). I definitely don't see an NEXIST argument there; not that one could be made, anyways. λ NegativeMP1 19:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate notability usually falls on the Keep side, if they cannot provide sources, their argument theoretically should be discarded, but the Delete side can simply say "fails GNG" and that would count as a solid argument. If we have an SNG pass, the roles should be reversed. In this thread, I always tried to indicate that an SNG as a clarification of NEXIST is a typical interpretation of some group of editors, to which I don't belong. Personally, I believe that a vote based on charts is always valid, as shown by the AfD above. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how the burden of proof can ever fall on somebody who has to prove a negative (prove to me God doesn't exist...). In effect, that is simply an argument that charting always guarantees notability.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

When someone votes to delete an article for a reason of simply "fails GNG", it is because arguments for why the topic is non-notable were likely already made by the nominator of the discussion to begin with. They are saying that because there's not much else to say, and they agree with the nominator. Ideally, there could be some extra stuff like proof of running extra source checks, but sometimes there really is not anything else to say. If someone nominates an article for deletion with just a simple "fails GNG" or other boilerplate argument, then that should not be viewed as acceptable and I think the majority of the community would agree that more elaboration is needed.

On the other side, there is also an obligation for those voting to keep to express how the subject is suitable. There, "meets GNG/NSONG" would be a flawed argument on its own if no sources are presented. NEXIST even states the following: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". When you, or another editor, vote entirely on the basis of "the song charted so it must be notable", that is exactly the thing that NEXIST warns against and it is no different than WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. But my comments here likely can't do much more from this point, as I think OwenX put it way better than I ever could. λ NegativeMP1 06:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

At the very least, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Far Gone? was an AfD that ended in a closure declaring charting doesn't automatically confer notability. λ NegativeMP1 16:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Admins are just editors with additional powers, they are not policy oracles. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"Admins are just editors with additional powers" the power to close discussions based on consensus. Are you saying the close of that AfD was wrong and that charting automatically confers notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I am saying that the close of that AfD reflected the opinion of the closing admin, which doesn't have more weight than the opinion of anyone else in this discussion. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Since they closed the AfD in question, pinging @OwenX:. It is not their "opinion." It was a decision based on the consensus established by those presenting policy-based arguments. You don't have to like the decision, but dismissing the admin's ability to close a discussion based on consensus and then calling it an opinion is not really accepting consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree that there was a consensus regarding policy interpretation in that AfD. In any case, that opinion is only relevant to that discussion. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I would invite you to open a discussion at WP:DRV then. Maybe this would help further support your contention that it was not a policy based decision. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This is pointless. The outcome is policy-based because, as I said below, a 5-2 vote is a clear consensus to redirect. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

First, AfD's are not decided on vote count. Weight is given to the appropriate policy-based arguments. A vote count is not policy-based. You have made this argument elsewhere and it is not true. If it were, why not just have a "delete" or "keep" button and we can add up votes at the end? Why are admins the only ones allowed to close certain AfD discussions? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:CLOSE says, If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the larger number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. So it is a vote count in certain cases. Non-admins cannot close discussions in which the consensus is to delete, but the one linked above could have been closed by any uninvolved editor. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I know what CLOSE says but thanks for the reminder. You are moving the goalposts here as you first said, and have argued elsewhere, that vote count is what matters in deletion decisions. It is not. Policy-based votes are what matters. Now that you bring up CLOSE though, may I point you to the part about consensus not being an "opinion" Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community. Closers are reminded to take care about forming a local consensus in discussions with a small number of regular participants, per this ArbCom ruling. Since you disagree with that close, would you like me to open DRV on behalf of this discussion? I would like to get a determination about that decision being an "opinion" or not. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Admin was also pinged so hopefully they can provide input as it would be a requirement prior to DRV. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Below I even added, unless the keep argument is significantly stronger, and it wasn't, and unwisely thought that it should not be repeated in my reply to you. Obviously, you can open a DRV if you want, my point is that the specific AfD doesn't matter and doesn't set any precedent. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

My point is that the AfD doesn't matter and doesn't set any precedent - Seriously? Admins make decisions based on interpretations of policies, including the one being cited in that AfD. They made a decision based on past consensus and the policy-based reasoning argued in that discussion. It is following a precedent which is why I suggested DRV if you feel they are just willy nilly throwing an opinion out there like a WP:SUPERVOTE. You also have not addressed the wording about this I provided above. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That isn't what I claimed or said. I was pointing out however that there was least one case of a discussion closing with that consensus, in response to a comment that closers don't generally take this into consideration. λ NegativeMP1 19:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

5-2 is a clear redirect consensus unless the keep argument is significantly stronger, and it wasn't. Many closers do take the charting argument seriously, which Boynamedsue correctly stated above. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, CNMall41. Kelob2678 is right in saying that my opinion as a closer doesn't carry more weight than the opinion of the participants. In fact, as CNMall41 points out, if I do my job as a closer properly, my opinion shouldn't carry any weight, merely enact the consensus among the opinions of the participants, as viewed through the lens of P&G.

NSONG, like many SNGs, is a frequent bone of contention at AfDs. The guideline was intentionally written to suggest what may indicate notability, without dictating any absolute pass/fail criteria. The community generally frowns upon unwavering, clear-cut notability criteria, because exceptions and edge cases are better handled through case-by-case consensus.

As for the particular AfD mentioned, arguments of the "of course it's notable, it charted at number 1!" carry limited P&G weight. A song's notability doesn't materialize by virtue of it reaching a certain place in a chart. What NSONG tells us is that a song that did well in the charts is likely to have ample sourcing covering it, at which point it satisfies GNG. In that sense, Kelob2678 is right in saying that NSONG is linked to NEXIST, in the sense that popular songs are likely to have sources, and notability is determined by the existence of sources, rather than by their inclusion in the article. However, it is still up to us to uncover those sources to establish notability. We all know WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a poor argument for retention. Closing an AfD as redirect or merge generally requires less of a clear consensus than closing it as delete, since the content is still there in the history, available to anyone who finds new sources that tip the GNG scales. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Far Gone?, I believe consensus was clear enough.

As for the proposed guideline changes, having a clear set of notability criteria for music would certainly make my life easier as a closer, but I don't think it would benefit the project. Does charting at #1 in Djibouti, with sales of 500, confer more notability than charting at #97 in the US, with weekly sales of 50,000? Should we instead go by sales rather than by chart position? In the end, notability is about the impact the subject made, which is measured not by sales figures or chart position, but by the amount and depth of sources covering it. Hence, GNG, with NSONG and other SNGs to give us indications of when to look for sourcing. Owen× ☎ 23:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Precisely - It is not their "opinion." It was a decision based on the consensus established by those presenting policy-based arguments. - Admins don't (at least shouldn't) close based on their opinion. That would be a supervote. I believe the main contention with this and other SNGs is that some editors, mainly newer edits will little AfD or newer AfD experience, often mistake them for inherent notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Notes

In the Philippines, up until the 2020s, there weren't record charts to speak of. There's also no newspaper or magazine archive on the internet that we can find sources; this is fatal not just on music-related articles but anything pop culture (movies, TV, theater, etc., LOL even elections) because there's no chance you can find contameporaneous sources. This means people can send articles on Filipino topics pre-internet to AFD with impunity since you won't find WP:GNG-depth sources, much less actual sources, save for maybe modern-day sources which are not in depth. Now, WP:NSONG has several bullet points that would have saved some articles, but the correct interpretation of this is "these things do not matter, use WP:GNG instead. This was apparent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito (song was released in 1979, has been covered multiple times), where people cited WP:NSONG and it was kept due to no consensus. This was brought to DRV, then on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito (2nd nomination), was deleted as WP:NSONG doesn't really mean anything. FWIW, WP:NALBUM references songs anyway.

Suggestion: Either make the WP:NSONG bullet points an WP:SNG, or delete this section altogether, just leave "use WP:GNG" for song-related articles. Or redirect this to WP:NALBUM. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Sources for the Phillipines are known to exist offline in print: . Those offline printed sources do count towards GNG. The fact that it is difficult to access those sources is not relevant to GNG. Amending this guideline will not alter the fact that those sources absolutely do count towards GNG. The real solution is to take steps to secure the preservation and digitisation of those sources, and to facilitate our access to them. I am under the impression that the WMF has money. Perhaps they could contribute? James500 (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've had NCAA Season 6 basketball tournaments (1930) get through WP:DYK because newspaper archives from that era exist. It's undoubtedly WP:GNG sources exist, it's just we don't have access to them. Because we do not have access to them, several other articles went to AFD, such as the aforementioned song above (1st AFD was no consensus, 2nd AFD was deleted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champoy (TV series) (deleted; where I said "Until we have a gold mine of Philippine newspapers pre-1987 in the internet, Wikipedia is not the place for articles about Philippine TV shows, films and pop culture pre-1987"), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 Naga, Camarines Sur, local elections (no consensus).

I'd imagine these exist somewhere and is actually being taken care of, but is not on the internet. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Support removing or at least rewording the "may be notable if" criteria, as these criteria seem to be misinterpreted by editors as a reason to bypass other policies. I recently nominated The Moment of Truth (The Real Milli Vanilli album) for deletion (discussion here). I thought this would be a slam-dunk nom as I searched extensively while working on a separate page (Milli Vanilli) and came up totally empty-handed for extensive coverage in reliable sources — there was simply nothing to write about that isn't already covered in the main Milli Vanilli page. The nom failed on the basis that the album charted in Germany and therefore met one of the "may be notable if..." criteria. As far as I can tell this is meaningless per WP:NALBUM, which says that "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." This page is doomed to remain a stub forever. Popcornfud (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: the album article is now much more than a stub. You did a good job there. Merging it in its entirety to the artist page would result in WP:UNDUE emphasis. I agree with you that those voting "keep" in the AfD misunderstand NSONG, which is your main point. I'm just not sure the example you gave demonstrates the point well. Owen× ☎ 10:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. However, I disagree that the information on the Real Milli Vanilli page is undue for the main Milli Vanilli page — except for the tracklist and personnel info, all of the information on the Real Milli Vanilli page is taken from the main Milli Vanilli page, where I think it's totally relevant. So it's simply a duplicate. Popcornfud (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

NALBUM worked perfectly here. The charting indicated that it "may be notable" and the finding of significant coverage (I also found book references and Newspaper.com articles) confirmed. What did NOT work perfectly is what I have said throughout this thread in that voters often misunderstand the guideline and believe charting simply confers notability automatically. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If you could share your sources on the talk page for that article that would be great. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If you isolate the terms "moment of truth" and "milli vanilli" together in Google Books and Newspapers.com you will find them. There is a lot of churnalism and mentions in Newspapers.com to dig through but you will find them. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That album unambiguously satisfies GNG. In addition to the coverage already cited in the article (which is not irrelevant), and whatever sources are in newspapers.com, there are, amongst other sources: "The Real Milli Vanilli" in "Albums" in "New Releases", Music & Media, 23 February 1991, p 24; "The Real Milli Vanilli", Music & Media, 9 March 1991, p 13; "The Real Vanilli", Billboard, 4 May 1991, p 30; Fred Dellar, "The Real Milli Vanilli: The Moment of Truth", Hi-Fi News & Record Review, vol 36, No 8: August 1991, p 86; "Album Reviews", Wolverhampton Express and Star, 8 June 1991, p 18; Shields Daily Gazette, 24 April 1991, p 8; "The Real Milli Vanilli: The Moment of Truth", Audio: Das Magazin für HiFi und Musik, Audioplus, April 1991, p 21 (German); and "The Real Milli Vanilli", Bizz, No 72: July 1991, p 9 (Portuguese). The real problems at AfD are as follows: There are attempts delete albums that actually satisfy GNG; some of those attempts are made without an adequate search for sources; and some of those attempts persist even after sources are produced that prove the topic satisfies GNG. I have even seen cases where nominators, having been told in express and unambiguous words that an album satisfies GNG, persist in making now irrelevant arguments that chart positions do not make an album notable. The actual effect of this proposal would be to make it easier to delete albums that actually satisfy GNG. James500 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

There are attempts delete albums that actually satisfy GNG, if this is the case, it should be easy to prove they do meet GNG by introducing sources. The issue at AfDs is the opposite. People are claiming inherent notability based on charting or certification. They do so without providing significant coverage to support. If it does meet GNG, those sources would be easy to introduce in the discussion. Its the fly-by "notable, it charted" keep votes that show a misunderstanding of the guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been looking at WP:DSALBUMS recently. As far as I can remember, I have seen far more attempts to delete articles that satisfy GNG, than I have seen attempts to keep articles that do not satisfy GNG. Accordingly, attempts to delete articles that satisfy GNG appear to be a much bigger problem than the far less frequent attempts to keep articles that do not satisfy GNG. It is true that it is possible to add sources to an AfD, but it can be time consuming and is not necessarily particularly "easy". The real problem is that nominating an article on a topic that satisfies GNG is a waste of community time. The nominator is supposed to search for sources WP:BEFORE nominating the article. If the topic satisfies GNG, the nominator is supposed to find the sources and refrain from nominating the article in the first place. If the article is nominated, it wastes the time of all the people who have to !vote in the AfD. (Part of the problem is that even if the first !vote in the AfD produces sources that prove GNG, it usually takes several more !votes to stop the AfD, which is a complete waste of time). If large numbers of such nominations continue, a large amount of community time will be wasted. The community does not have unlimited time to waste on AfDs that should never have been started. James500 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You moved this into other issues, not notability. Notability is what we are discussing here. Users nominated pages all the time that are found notable after a discussion. This is why we have the process. Your statements show the process works. If the sources to show notability exist, they can be presented in the discussion and the page kept. I do not see the issue. Can you address my contention about people claiming inherent notability when they fail to provide sources or those sources don't exist?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for these sources! It looks like the album needs the criteria after all, so I'll spend some time soon integrating them when I can. Popcornfud (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

NTOUR and NT:CONCERT TOUR

NTOUR (in an useful way, IMHO) redirects here, but shouldn't NT:CONCERT TOUR point here too, instead of redirecting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Concerts? Sorry if this isn't the best page where to place this suggestion. Mind Booster Noori (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)