Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For reference, from WP:MUSIC:

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  1. Has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country(s)*
  2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country(s)*
  3. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)
  4. Has been prominently featured in any major music media
  5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such
  6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
  7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award

I believe that CSD should be narrowly phrased (to make passage easier), simple, and cover most of the obvious cases. Here's some food for thought:

  • Limit the criteria to musicians or ensembles whose members are currently living. That keeps us out of trouble with musicians like John Dowland or John Bull, who arguably don't meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria but is in fact notable as a musician. Cases of deceased musicians creating vanity pages are rare.
  • Limit the criteria to popular music, both because there are some folk and art music styles that are notable historically but have so few performers today that nearly all are notable, and because the problem articles are nearly all about popular music acts
  • Simplify and rephrase the WP:MUSIC criteria: and where the article makes no claim of performances, airplay, awards, media attention, or sale of recordings on a nationwide or worldwide scale for the ensemble or any of its members.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, after some thought I think "popular music" is too vague and likely to create more problems than it solves.

So, how about this: An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of performances, airplay, awards, media attention, or sale of recordings on a nationwide or worldwide scale for the ensemble or any of its members.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a good start but it may be a bit too wordy... "nationwide or worldwide" could be "at least nationwide". "Airplay" seems to me to imply media attention, so it could be dropped. Radiant_>|< 08:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good way to go, though - required referral to an external page (WP:MUSIC) is poor form for a CSD. Copy/pasting all elements of WP:MUSIC into CSD makes it too verbose. So a general case like this should be set up, so that it's impossible to meet WP:MUSIC without meeting this. Radiant_>|< 08:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to trimming out words. We could remove airplay if there are no objections. We could also remove "awards" because all the awards cited in WP:MUSIC are given only to artists who have sold recordings on a nationwide basis. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of performances, media attention, or sale of recordings on a nationwide scale for the ensemble or any of its members.

I don't think it's possible to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria without also meeting that. The only troubling areas are the matter of those few local acts that meet #6 and also the related matter of small groups working in unusual historical genres, like Morris dance tunes or rennaisance forms. I think there are few enough of these and they are obvious enough that they should pose no trouble. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of trying this road. However, I'm afraid a "claim of performances" might be a little to easy to meet, even for a garage-band vanity article. With this wording, "They have just played their first gig" or even "Their singer used to be a busker" will save a band from speedy deletion. This might be what we want, but I wonder if substituting "touring" might not work better.
On the other hand, I think that it might be asking too much to require claims of sales of recordings. My guess is that a lot of band-stubs about notable acts doesn't meet that, and I think it could easily sink the proposal in a vote. So, how about simply demanding a "recording contract" instead? Since it is impossible to set a sales threshold anyway, and it could be argued that any released recording is probably sold in some (albeit minimal) quantity, it makes admin judgement easier. And it will still kill almost all of the garage-band vanity articles. My suggestion would thus be something along the lines of: An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of a recording contract, touring or media attention for the ensemble or any of its members. / Alarm 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is supposed to be that they have to have done at least one of these things on a nationwide basis. Performed on a national tour, got media attention from a publication (or tv/radio show) with nationwide distriubution, sold recordings on a nationwide basis. Now, these criteria are easy enough to game for anyone whose willing to go to the trouble -- you can get amazon.com to carry any CD as long as you can ship it, and then get your cousin and Texas to buy one and you're selling CDs nationwide. But that isn't the point -- the point is that the vast majority of junk articles on garage bands aren't a serious attempt to get an article, they're a form of quick entertainment for the writer. Most such articles claim local gigs and go on in generalities about the creativity of the band and its sure-to-come importance to whatever style of music before degenerating into what kind of beer the performers drink. That's the stuff we want to get with this.
The articles where someone is really making a serious attempt to get an article on a non-notable band belong on VfD anyway because they're deserving of that degree of community attention before being deleted. Then the WP:MUSIC criteria would apply (or not, depending on who's voting), and there is less need for objective criteria. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is not entirely unambigous. I actually took it to mean
(performances) OR (media attention) OR (sale of recordings on a nationwide scale)
rather than
(performances OR media attention OR sale of recordings) on a nationwide scale.
In any case, this ought to be clarified. But seeing how hard it has been to get people to vote for any proposal to expand CSD, I think the only way to get a "band clause" passed is to put the threshold on a rather low level. While I share your analysis on why these articles are written, I fail to see how it supports including a "nationwide" criterion, since, just as you point out, practically all criteria can be gamed. It is my belief that "recording contract" and "tour" will be enough for most articles, and the rest can go to VfD. Specifically asking for nationwide media attention and/or sales is going to make it hard to get a rephrased proposal passed, as people will probably argue that statewide notability in the U.S. might be good enough. Not to mention the fact that the term "nationwide" is very vague (and will mean quite different things in the U.S. compared to e.g. Luxemburg...). Judging from the comments from people voting on the different proposals, criteria percieved as objective actually seem to be a deciding factor for many. It might at least be that for me. / Alarm 17:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about this revision: An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of national or regional performance tours, public performance to an audience of over 1,000 a sustantial audience, national, regional, or repeated regular local media attention, a commercial recording contract, or sale of recordings on a nationwide or regional scale for the ensemble or any of its members. By "regional" is meant an area larger than a single metropolitian area. This is intended to exclude garage bands and bar bands, but include performers with a verifiable reputation extending at least to multiple cities, or an area comperable to a US state. It isn't perfect, but is it a step? DES 18:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's certainly a step. However, your second-to-last sentence says things in a much simpler way: "performers with a verifiable reputation extending at least to multiple cities". I'd drop the last bit, because there are some American states that are larger than the UK! I've made a couple of tweaks, via strikes, hope you don't mind. Generally, precise numbers in CSDs seem to be unpopular, so I've removed that, in particular, and "repeated" just means more than once when regularity would be a better indicator. -Splash 19:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thoughts. A further revision: An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of national or regional performance tours; public performance to a sustantial audience; national, regional, or regular local media attention; a commercial recording contract; or sale of recordings on a nationwide or regional scale for the ensemble or any of its members. Performers who are claimed to have a verifiable reputation extending at least to multiple cities shall not be deleted under this criterion. DES 19:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question, should "present-day" be clarifed, say "formed withing the last 10 years" or is it better to leave it as just "present day"? DES 19:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer words would be better. CSDs should be short. The ability to game the criteria does not pose a problem because most of these writers don't come back. Based on feedback, I suggest this shorter criterion:

An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble without a claim of the group or one of its members having made at least one of these achievements:
  1. Making a nationwide performance tour
  2. Getting media coverage in any major music media
  3. Selling recordings on a commercial scale
  4. Local performances of an unusually notable nature

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "commercial scale" is clearly intended to have some implicit meaning, but as all "selling" is inherently "commercial" it can potentially be claimed that "I sold one copy to my buddy Joe" meets the requirement. I apologize for the excessively literal reading, but when these issues get disputed people tend to resort to such arguments. Making meaningful criteria without rejecting potentially valuable content is a difficult balancing act. --Michael Snow 21:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about "retail sale"? That specifically means sale through a store. — Gwalla | Talk 21:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear this is setting the bar too high, and will be hard to get consensus for. How about:

An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble without a claim of the group or one of its members having made at least one of these achievements:

  1. Making a nationwide or multi-city performance tour;
  2. Getting coverage in any major music media;
  3. Getting regular local media coverage;
  4. Selling recordings via a retail shop;
  5. Selling recordings on a regional or wider scale; or
  6. Local performances of an unusually notable nature.

Does that cover the bases without being too wordy? DES 21:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that but would like to point out that WP:MUSIC sets the bar much higher than this; articles are getting deleted through VfD routinely based on the WP:MUSIC criteria. Many non-notable bands sell recordings through retail shops where they have ties, though admittedly it is rare for problem articles to actually assert this. The proposal before would have passed were it not for the concerns about incorporating WP:MUSIC by reference, and I don't think we need to set the bar substantially lower than WP:MUSIC to achieve passage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would a reference to a distribution chain help? This would help indicate that the recording is being sold by people other than just the band and their buddies. --Michael Snow 22:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that WP:MUSIC has a much higher bar but we are after all trying to come up with a criterion that can be applied "on sight", or "on sight and google". I'd be a little bit concerned at having a 6-fold check to carry out in this sense and wonder if we will wind up re-inventing WP:MUSIC. I do wonder why that has not made it to official-policy status given its de facto-policy status as it is. I suspect it is because it is perceived as setting the bar too high for a speedy, but not too high for a VfD.

One of the objections raised to nearly all the proposals was "newbies don't know they are supposed to do X", and a list of 4-6 things will face similar insruction-creep claims. However, it will be important to point out that we are not trying work out what newbies should do in an article, rather we are trying to work out what a vain-newbie would almost certainly not be able to do. And, if they can't manage any of a fairly low-bar, longish list, then they can be speedied with reasonable confidence. With a view to reducing the number of 'instructions' that might face creep claims, how about a minor compression which also raises the bar a little:

(preamable):

  1. Making a tour at least national in scope in any country;
  2. Receiving media coverage in any major music media or regular coverage in local media;
  3. Selling recordings via a distribution chain on at least a regional scale;
  4. Giving local performances of an unusually notable nature.

I suspect some redundancy in 4, since that will usually achieve 2. -Splash 23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think the bar should be raised too high. While the 3-C proposal got considerable support, I would very much like to be on the sure side this time, because if this gets shot down it will be extremely hard to get a new band-vanity proposal considered for quite some time. (On a side note, the WP:MUSIC criteria isn't all that high. Bear in mind that in a smaller country the WP:MUSIC chart position requirements are fairly easy to achieve for any pop artist releasing a single on a commercial record company.) CSD is not VfD - the point here is, IMO, to get rid of blatant and obvious vanity from the garage bands, not necessarily to catch everything that would get a delete consensus on VfD. I also think the criteria should be as objective as possible, not forcing the admin to judge what is "unusually notable" or somesuch.
I think there are a few very obvious things that separates the clearly non-notable bands from the more or less notable. Most importantly, a commercial recording contract and/or commercial distribution (possibly with the clarification that internet downloading only should not be enough). Regarding media attention, I think any claim of media attention might be enough to take it to VfD instead. (If we're sticking to a higher bar, I'd prefer using "media coverage on a national level" as it makes "major music media" redundant and covers national TV, radio and newspapers as well.) As for touring, I think "performing outside their local area" might be enough to catch the vanity. I also want to rephrase the preamble, in order to make it obvious that the specific words of the criteria need not be used. So, my proposal would be:
An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble, if it cannot be inferred from the article that the group or one of its members meet at least one of the following criteria:
  1. Having, or having had, a commercial recording contract
  2. Having, or having had, commercial distribution of (pressed? physical?) recordings
  3. Having had any (professional? mainstream? non-fanzine/college radio?) media coverage
  4. Having performed outside their local area
However, while writing this, it just dawned on me that we're more or less rephrasing Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B, which tried to simplify WP:MUSIC and turn it into policy. This proposal received only around 50% support in spite of setting a rather low bar. What went wrong there, and how do we make a stronger case for any new proposal with the same general structure?/ Alarm 13:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with 3B was that there was conjecture that certain bands that met WP:MUSIC would still fall within the criterion, as proposed. Then 3C failed because it incorporated WP:MUSIC by reference. Therefore, our goal should be to come up with the simplest, shortest possible criteria that (a) most of the junk articles we actually get will meet and (b) won't catch anything that meets WP:MUSIC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine tuning

[edit]

Here is an attempt to synthesize the various elements discussed so far.

An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble, if the article does not indicate at least one of the following about the group or one of its members:
  1. A commercial recording contract, or
  2. Sales of physical recordings via a commercial distribution chain, or
  3. Performances outside the local area, or
  4. Coverage in major music media or mainstream general media

Some examples of how these might be satisfied:

  1. "Band A was signed by Label B." (where Label B is not the personal invention of Band A)
  2. "Band A sold 10,000 units of Album C." (as the number gets lower, we would want to see more specific indication that commercial distribution was involved)
  3. "Band A went on tour in 2005 and played at Venues X, Y, and Z in Birmingham, Manchester, and Glasgow."
  4. Coverage in Down Beat and The Miami Herald are equally acceptable.

I think the examples of how to avoid the criteria would be useful in allaying people's concerns, although they aren't part of the proposal itself. Comments or suggestions? --Michael Snow 16:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could support the above. The versions previously sugested that would have required a national tour or commercial sales would have excluded several folk singer/song-writers and groups who are well established and notable in their fields, but tour only regionally and self-publish CDs which they sell directly at concerts. I agree that several useful examples should be included with the proposal, buit not as part of the proposed policy wording. DES 20:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is quite a good way to go. However, I'm not clear on DES's comment. Would this proposal not present the same barrier to folk singers as you describe? Or perhaps I misunderstand. -Splash 14:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all such performers that i know of regualrly tour on a regional (multi-state) basis, which would fit point 3 above, while previous versions that accepted a claim of touring only on a "national" basis would not have been satisfied. DES 15:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this works fine. However, I've tried to work out a few counter-arguments others might come up with:

  • A session musician can be notable for having played with some of the most famous musicians in the world, despite not having a record contract of his own and not playing live.
  • WP:MUSIC says "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city". This isn't fully covered. While a Sheffield indie band will probably get some local media attention, an electronica musician might be well-known in his genre while (possibly due to ideology) only releasing his music for free on the Internet.
  • Internet phenomena such as Anton Maiden and MC Hawking can be argued to be musicians and thus eligible for speedying, despite having a very high likelihood of surviving VfD. (Note that while the two examples I've found from a quick look both actually seem to have released records, there probably are a number of Internet "one-hit wonders" with a similar story.)

What would you say to these claims? / Alarm 11:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think session musicians are a serious problem under any criteria we might establish. These items are separate options, not requirements; if a studio drummer appears on the albums of other artists, he or she would meet #2 above, in spite of not having their own recording contract. And given the credits typically provided on CD liner notes these days, verifiability isn't a big issue for this either. --Michael Snow 17:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we can agree that #2 covers them, I'm perfectly OK with that. It might however be wise to clarify through examples that there is no requirement to be an official member of the act releasing the the recording - that it's enough to appear on it. / Alarm 18:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that these are reasons for using "sold recordings on a commercial scale" without the "physical" element; I dislike the "recording contract" item because it is unrelated to WP:MUSIC, is rarely claimed, and is sufficiently covered by "sold recordings on a commercial scale." The "local scene" part of WP:MUSIC is problematic in a number of ways, and I would suggest that WP:MUSIC be amended for clarity in this area. I had proposed "local performances of an unusually notable nature" which I believe captured it as it is, however. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind dropping the "physical" if that's problematic, but as I mentioned earlier the particular phrase "commercial scale" strikes me as being difficult to keep meaningful, which is why I prefer to mention a distribution chain. I'm not attached to whether recording contracts are mentioned, it's simply another option. If it's rarely mentioned, fine, I just would have thought it would be easier in some cases for an article's author to say who the band signed with than how much they sold, assuming they didn't make it onto any charts. I'm not sure how best to capture the idea of a group that is purely part of a local scene. --Michael Snow 16:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be to ask too much of the speedying admin to expect her/him to judge whether the local performances have been "unusually notable" or not. Could we possibly achieve this this by testing for something less subjective? I'll try to think about something.
I can understand the rationale for dropping the "physical" element, but I agree with Michael Snow about the need to mention a commercial distribution chain. Otherwise, it could be argued that a sentence like "You can by their promo CD from their home page" should save an article from speedy deletion.
I still support the "recording contract" item, since it is A) not fully covered by "sold recordings" as no recordings might yet have been released, and B) as Michael points out, it's a bit of a safety measure to avoid the deletion of some valid articles where the author hasn't given enough information for the other criteria to be met.
I would very much like to hear your opinions on "download stars" without a recording contract. What might worry some people is the possibility that we kick out a reasonably "prominent representative of a notable style" (a narrow and truly underground one - think Vedic metal or Neofolk) that might get a "keep" at VfD due to, for instance, a large number of webzine articles and a huge internet following.
As for using other criteria than WP:MUSIC, I don't see any problem with that, as long as we keep it simple and put the bar at a lower level than those rules do. As Sjakkalle pointed out when voting on 3-C, "WP:MUSIC implies sufficient and not neccesary criteria for inclusion". When the proposal is presented, it should be clearly stated that it does not mainly intend to rephrase WP:MUSIC, but rather to set a lower bar suitable for speedy deletion decisions, targeting only the blatant vanity articles. / Alarm 17:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the sincere hope that, in a few short years, there will be many notable musical acts that lack a traditional record contract and distribute a considerable volume of recordings for free. Physical media is likely to become less important in the coming years and may well disappear altogether at some point.
As for recording contracts, I note that many bands that sign recording contracts never produce records, and of those that do, many are not notable, producing an album or two before lapsing into obscurity. Signing a recording contract may not be notable in and of itself.
Though I can understand the concern about an admin judging whether a local performance has been "unusually notable," the fact is that these criteria are so conservative that it hardly matters. I will again bring up the matter of Juli Wood, who easily meets these criteria, but is not IMO encyclopedic. Right? She's a fixture of the local music scene in Madison. She tours in Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, has had articles in mainstream media (such as the Minneapolis newspaper), articles in the music press (Jazz Times), two CDs out (CDBaby.com). But guess what? She's not encyclopedic. IMO of course, and because she has not made history. No hits. Not a thought leader for music. Not pushing the edge of the musical style. Not prominent enough to enable us to research her contributions in the usual sorts of library references one might use for that sort of thing. Not well-known enough for the wiki process to work effectively, bottom line. But we have an article anyway, and it meets WP:MUSIC and the speedy criteria.
Remember what we're trying to do, which is to delete the look-alike articles that are clearly useless, in the form of "Points North is a really cool band from Gainsville, Pete K. plays guitar, Louis F. plays drums, and sometimes Kate R. sings with them but she isn't really a member. They took 2nd place in the battle of the bands last winter and have some cool trax to download from their website at www.fortunecity.com/~123456/trax.html." The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. The bar may be well below WP:MUSIC; the point is to get rid of the most obvious vanity cruft (up to five such articles per day on VFD) without hassle. I've even seen some die-hard inclusionists support 3-B simply because band vanity happens too often. Radiant_>|< 20:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Going forward

[edit]

Once all those currently discussing on this page think we have a satisfactory proposal (and I think we are close if not there), i suggest that we advertise the proposal as widely as possible and invite further discussion for some time before we try to initate a vote. This may avoid the problem that happened last time when proposals were altered and revised versions introduced after voting had started. DES 15:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. There are a number of other proposals making the rounds (such as on the CSD talk page). It's perfectly reasonable to discuss more potential amendments or additions to CSD, but we really shouldn't put it up to a vote too soon. I'd say wait for at least a month, possibly more depending on how the discussion goes. Radiant_>|< 17:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

<prods the talk page>. It's been a while now. Do people think we can finish this off and try sounding out the community on it? Seeing the latest entry on temp undelete on VfU made me realize how much we need this. -Splash 21:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<very late response to prodding>
Sorry for not responding sooner. We're close, I would say, and I hope we can get this off the ground soon. Trying to incorporate some of the concerns with the latest version posted, I would suggest a few slight modifications before "going live":
An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble, if the article does not assert at least one of the following about the group or one of its members:
  1. A commercial recording contract, or
  2. Appearance on recordings sold via a commercial distribution chain, or
  3. Performances outside the local area, or
  4. Coverage in major music media or mainstream general media, or
  5. Verifiable claims of being a major Internet phenomenon
  • I've changed indicate to assert in the opening sentence, for consistency with the wording of CSD A7.
  • I've changed Sales of recordings to Appearance on recordings sold to explicitly accomodate for session musicians. (Admittedly, this is a very low bar for session musicians, but such articles don't appear often and can be handled through AfD. However, this wording will cover possible concerns that someone who has appeared on a number of Beatles and Rolling Stones albums could be deleted.)
  • I've also tried to create an "Internet phenomenon" condition. Obviously, a major music-related Internet phenomenon will be notable as such. This is intended as a safeguard to avoid anyone using this CSD clause to justify speedying them by judging them simply as musical acts.
All this might seem like setting the bar very low, but as has been said before, speedying blatant band vanity is not a replacement for AfD, but a tool to keep the most obvious cases away from the process. Just as for the A7 criteria for individuals, meeting any of these criteria does NOT automatically make an article a "keep" - it just means that it should go to AfD instead. The whole strategy here is to have a bar that (almost) everyone can accept, one lower than for WP:MUSIC.
I haven't been following debates elsewhere very carefully, but if there is any other proposal in the works, it would be a good idea to go forward in a coordinated effort. Or should we bring this forward on its own? / Alarm 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/3-C&oldid=1080295282"