This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
No. The aggregate ratings of AnyDecentMusic? should not be included because they have not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and including them in articles constitutes undue weight to their assessment of critical consensus, which violatesWP:NPOV, a fundamental site-wide policy.Οἶδα (talk)07:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - ADM aggregates can be used,but only in lieu of Metacritic. We only need one aggregate score, especially because the two aggregators overlap in the sources that they use.So, either is fine, but only use one.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)14:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – Include both. While ADM certainly has its own set of problems such as its choices of review websites, this is ignoring the problems Metacritic has as well. Metacritic often assigns arbitrary ratings to articles that do not have one in the first place, which IMO is quite a bad practice. Lookhere to see that they assign ratings to articles byThe Quietus. They go by a non-transparent weighing system that is unclear to the public. On their FAQ, they outright saythis.
Considering how ADM is essentially Metacritic's only substantial competitor, I don't get theWP:NPOV argument. Removing it because it's perceived as less notable isn't a very neutral take either. Looking at the deletion discussion, it appears to have been deleted only based on the decision of two editors (correct me here if I'm missing something), based on a lack of sources that they found. I agree it's best not to leave its article up if people didn't add enough sources, but the failure of editors to find sources for it doesnot make it non-notable, only that it has yet to be established as such. At the very least, reputable sources have appeared to take it seriously, considering the list 3family6 gave.Fundgy (talk)17:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in this RfC is not whether Metacritic or ADM has the better methodology. It is whether ADM's aggregation is given sufficient weight in reliable, independent secondary sources to justify its widespread inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Metacritic has been cited in hundreds of reliable sources as a standard for critical reception. ADM has been cited in, at most, a handful of articles, which does not establish it as a significant voice in music criticism. By any reasonable standard of real-world prominence, that falls well short of what could be characterised as "substantial". The additional sources posted below do not change this. In total, we are looking at maybe 7 references over more than 15 years, none of which demonstrate consistent, in-depth, or authoritative use of ADM's raings in evaluating critical reception.
Respectfully, you are misunderstanding what neutrality means on Wikipedia.WP:NPOV is not about giving equal treatment to all sources or viewpoints but rather giving proportionate weight to each, based on how they are represented in reliable, independent sources. It does not require that every perspective or platform be included just because it exists, or because it is a competitor to a more prominent source. This is an issue of content weight, not editorial bias. Article deletion is also not the basis for this discussion. You are right that not having an article does not prove a lack of notability, but the AfD deletion does mean that the community reviewed whether there was significant coverage in reliable sources, and found it lacking. You are welcome to expandDraft:Any Decent Music. But the result has been exactly the same: sources that are insignificant, passing mentions, non-independent, or unreliable.Οἶδα (talk)22:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to getting rid of ADM in articles in general. It's just this proposal in effect bans all aggregators other than Metacritic, which I believe, while certainly notable, is dubiously reliable. A much more practical solution would be to establish rules that specify which and how many aggregators should be used, which would effectively take care of this entire problem. I do think that as an entity, AnyDecentMusic? isjust notable enough to warrant inclusion in circumstances when no others are available, so after some thought, I've altered my choice to:
Yes - use only in lieu of Metacritic, echoing 3family6.
As an aside, at no point did I suggest we give equal treatment. The phrase I assume you inferred this from, "Metacritic's only substantial competitor", does not suggest I think they're equally qualified. Also, with a total of four editors contributing to the AfD, just two voted to delete. I agree with that decision, but it's a bit of a misrepresentation to call it a vote by the community.Fundgy (talk)01:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this proposal in effect bans all aggregators other than Metacritic
This discussion is exclusively seeking a consensus on the due weight of ADM as a source for aggregate ratings, not about Metacritic. We do not retain a source simply because it supposedly offsets another source. You are free to propose the addition of any other aggregator. The fact that no others exist has no bearing on our assessment of ADM as an individual source. I will state again: We should reflect how reliable secondary sources describe an album's reception, not how an unrecognized website scores it. Nor should we be resorting to ADM with the rationale beingin lieu of Metacritic. There is no policy basis for making exceptions based on the absence of other sources. You are of course free to open a separate RfC proposing to remove Metacritic based on your reasoning that their methodology is unclear and unreliable. The reliability of AnyDecentMusic? as a source does not change based on the presence or absence of another source. Wikipedia does not operate on a scarcity model where any source fills the void; we only include what is verifiably used in the real world. The correct action is to not include an aggregated score at all. And as I indicated below, ADM's ratings have only ever been reported in a reliable source one (1) time in its entire history. That is not "enough". And it means that Wikipedia is currently the only major platform treating ADM as a standard or notable aggregator. This is why it violates the site-wide policy ofWP:NPOV. Articles are made to reflect real-world significance, not manufacture it.
As for the AfD: You agree with its decision, but claim it was "only that it has yet to be established as such". Wikipedia is not aWP:CRYSTAL ball. We do not predict a future where ADM's prominence as an aggregator rises to a level where it passes AfD. The lack of participation does not negate the conclusion that ADM's coverage is insufficient. AfDs are not decided by a votecount but by strength of arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy. Even a lightly participated AfD carries weight if it demonstrates that no significant coverage in reliable sources perWP:GNG were presented at the time, which was the case here. If you believes ADM has since gained notability, the appropriate route would be to improve the draft and submit it for the mainspace, not to disregard the original consensus or minimize it here.Οἶδα (talk)03:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About yourWP:CRYSTAL statement, which is inadvertently arguing the semantics of "yet". Let's say I make a draft. Reviewer rejects it, says "it's yet to shown as notable." At no point do I take that to assume that it is somehow destined to be accepted one day, and I think just about everyone else would react in the same way.
"The fact that no others exist has no bearing on our assessment of ADM as an individual source." Not the takeaway I expected to hear back. I said: "AnyDecentMusic? isjust notable enough to warrant inclusion in circumstances when no others are available". This same practice is routine and standard for limiting of number of reviews allowed in the ratings template, so how about extending this principle to the aggregators? Both Sergecross73 and 3family6 both appear to agree that only one is necessary, so I feel like this could be part of the takeaway here.
I really hope this is all just a matter of misunderstandings, but after two replies in a row like this, I just don't want to be in a circular argument. To summarize, you think that ADM is not suitable for inclusion whatsoever based on notability, and I happen to disagree and think there's some nuance to be had here, which I tried to explain to the best of my ability. I shall leave my answer as is, and I'm happy to be outvoted here.Fundgy (talk)06:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your interest in discussing this efficiently. I want for us to understand each other. To that end, I am not going to reply to what is ultimately irrelevant because it is unproductive to stray from the RfC topic. Let me be clear, I believe that ADM is not suitable for inclusion based onWP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE) andWP:RS (WP:USEBYOTHERS). Not "notability", which is factor in deciding whether a given topic warrants its own article on Wikipedia, not whether a source should be used in Wikipedia articles. These are two different things. So please let's stop discussing "notability" and AfD.
Yes, the ratings template limits the number of sources for clarity and consistency. But that practice does not mean we substitute in scores from sources whose scores have received virtually no recognition or usage in reliable secondary sources simply because there is an absence of better sources with scores. That would be inclusion by default, not due weight. I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise, but use "in lieu of Metacritic" is not backed by Wikipedia policy. If no reliable aggregator exists for an album, Wikipedia should reflect that reality, not fill the gap with a source whose aggregate ratings lack recognition in the field. That is what I meant when I said such an absence "has no bearing on our assessment of ADM as an individual source". This RfC is to discuss the reliability of ADM as a source for aggregate ratings, not subjective considerations about its usefulness in comparison to other sources. That was already discussed in the 2016 RfC.
You say that you "happen to disagree and think there's some nuance to be had here". Again: ADM's ratings have only ever been reported in a reliable source one (1) time in its entire history. That is not "nuance" in its favor. And it means that Wikipedia is currently the only major platform treating ADM as a standard or notable aggregator. This is why it violates the site-wide policy ofWP:NPOV. Articles are made to reflect real-world significance, not manufacture it.
So to summarize, you believe the existence of a single BBC article from 2014 citing an ADM rating establishes ADM as areliable source for aggregate ratings. And that the other six mentions constitute sufficiently consistent and widespread (WP:USEBYOTHERS) use by other sources, and that they sufficiently establish the influence, methodology, and editorial authority of ADM's aggregation. And that "nuance" warrants incorporating ADM's specific viewpoint (rating) only in the absence of another source's viewpoint, despite there being no Wikipedia policy that supports including sources conditionally based on scarcity, and which is effectively implying that a viewpoint (rating) inherits dueWP:WEIGHT by virtue of a similar source's absence. I happen to disagree. Also, reliability is not simply established by Wiki users independently assessing a source directly and thinking it looks like it has enough editorial standards. And in the case of aggregators, the threshold for reliability and weight is necessarily higher. As I described below, because an aggregator is a source interpreting and synthesizing other sources, it is still entirely "reliable" within its own framework. Past RfCs decided that the aggregation fromMetacritic andRotten Tomatoes aggregators were determined "reliable" byWP:WEIGHT because their aggregation had been consistently cited and treated as authoritative by reliable, independent secondary sources.Οἶδα (talk)11:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ADM is reliable,Οἶδα. Your RfC doesn't ask about reliability, but the appropriateness of using it as an aggregator. I think, given that ADM does have references in multiple reliable sources, you have the uphill battle in arguing that it universally should be banned even in instances where Metacritic doesn't have aggregate scores (if such instances even exist).--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)12:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this RfC asks whether ADM's aggregate ratings should be included in articles. I believe you're drawing an artificial distinction between reliability and "appropriateness of use", which isn't supported by how Wikipedia applies sourcing policy, particularly for aggregators. When we are evaluating a review aggregator, we are not simply asking whether the source exists or generally publishes information accurately, we are asking whether its aggregation is itself "reliable" by virtue of it being consistently consistently cited and treated as authoritative as a summary of critical reception by reliable, independent secondary sources. All I am saying is that ADM's ratings have not received sufficient usage/recognition in reliable sources to justify routine inclusion across thousands of articles, especially not in the{{Music ratings}} template where inclusion signals editorial weight. As for the suggestion that excluding ADM is an "uphill battle", I respectfully disagree. The evidence remains that in 15+ years of operation, ADM's aggregate ratings have been cited maybe twice in reliable sources. The other handful of mentions are either passing, unrelated to its ratings, or come from questionable or minor sources. That is not a foundation for encyclopedic weight, that is an absence of it. It falls short of the threshold set by community precedent for determining the reliability of sources that synthesize and interpret other sources, i.e. aggregators: through their consistent citation and real-world usage by mainstream media sources, not by internal assessment or perceived usefulness. The former affirms their methodologies and aggregates, the latter does not and cannot. Review synthesis is an editorial process, not a passive reporting of facts, and aggregate reliability is inseparable from how that synthesis is reported by reliable secondary sources. This is precisely whatWP:USEBYOTHERS addresses. At this point, we are shuffling between "I believe the sources listed below demonstrate [blank]" and "I believe the sources listed below do not demonstrate [blank]". We should stop arguing in circles. You believe the usage is sufficient and in keeping with Wiki policy, I do not. End of story. If you want to discuss this further please take it to the sources section. Bloating this section further will only discourage broader participation.Οἶδα (talk)07:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're drawing an artificial distinction between reliability and "appropriateness of use", which isn't supported by how Wikipedia applies sourcing policy
Sources are "reliable", i.e. "appropriate" for different things, with different weights. It's rarely "reliable" or "not-reliable", but rather "reliable for what". ADM is reliable in terms of verifiability and accuracy concerns. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is of the same weight as Metacritic.
Yes,functionally blacklisting a reliable source is an uphill battle. Maybe the instances where ADM should be used are rare. Maybe Metacritic is always the preferable source (I personally would say it should always be the deferred to source, if it exists for that particular work). Butbanning a source, as you propose here, needs a very strong argument beyond just WP:DUE.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)12:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not actually looking to battle against an "in lieu of Metacritic" exception. I did explain why I disagree to that in my above replies to Fundgy, but I do not believe the difference is all that important. As you mentioned, the overlap between ADM and Metacritic is incredible. It is rare that ADM covers an album Metacritic has not, and ADM scores are predictably a few points below Metacritic's every time. And I agree about the issue of weight. The only issue I'm presenting is that the "reliable for what" with regard to ADM is "reliable for anything that it has not been deemed unreliable for". But also that the measure of real-world prominence (usage) indicates ADM to be virtually never "reliable" for its main product (ratings), for which it is cited in over 3000 articles across Wikipedia. And that due to the complex nature of aggregators, due weight is the only way to determine "reliability" for aggregation, and this is reflected in precedent. "virtually never" because there is virtually no established weight for its ratings. Wikipedia should reflect that. But again, the "in lieu" exception really isn't the issue, so I believe we are working in the same direction.Οἶδα (talk)08:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it means that Wikipedia is currently the only major platform treating ADM as a standard or notable aggregator.
Wikipedia is the only major platform that has a "notability" standard. Other sources aren't tertiary and with the same guidelines as Wikipedia. So there's nothing to compare Wikipedia to in this regard except other wikis, which generally are unreliable per WP:USERG.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)12:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to Wikipedia's notability policy but to real-world weight, which is central toneutrality on Wikipedia. When I said Wikipedia is the only major platform treating ADM as a standard aggregator, I meant that no reliable secondary sources consistently do so. That should be clear from what I've written in the post right above. I've been very specific about why this is a matter of weight, not notability. If ADM's ratings aren't consistently cited or relied upon elsewhere, then giving them prominence here violates Wikipedia's core content policies. I was never claiming that journalistic sources use or follow a Wikipedia-style notability guideline. That would be asburd. I of course apologise for having previously used the word "notable" in an alternative way, though I was directly replying to a user who had also used the word to describe a source as "notable enough to warrant inclusion".Οἶδα (talk)07:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per 3family6. In absence of MC being used, there is no compelling reason to not use an alternative, in other words, use just one, and if that one happens to be ADM, then that is better than none at all.Isaidnoway(talk)06:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. per 3family6.Also 1. correct me if wrong but i dont think ADM adds scores to reviews with no scores like Metacritic has sometimes done?? (amended; see below) 2. I find the site's "poll of polls" lists (which is basically an aggregate based on album end-of-year lists, sourced from sources which (almost, bar a few?) align with what WP:ALBUMS consider reliable; see link), which they've published since 2009, to be extremely useful and id be pissed if i couldnt use them (i'm going to now i know lol) //Chchcheckit (talk)20:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be Metacritic, but it is also not Album of the Year or AcclaimedMusic either; i feel ADM has a sembelance of (editorial) integrity that doesn't feel too slanty or biased either. Idk maybe a policy against usinf "On review aggregator Anydecentmusic" in the beginning of reception sections for the visibility reasons that have been brought up, especially since the score isn't given a threshold consensus name (i.e. 80+ is acclaim) and any meaning derived would be OR without a source (i.e assuming it is critically acclaimed because it has an 8.4 when it doesn't state "acclaim"; maybe a source you can find does say it was acclaimed; if that makes sense), but otherwise I don't really think there is much of an issue with ADM. I still find the poll of polls helpful as a way of determing general acclaim. //Chchcheckit (talk)11:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: AnyDecentMusic? is effectively a British alternative to the American aggregator Metacritic. The publications included by ADM seem perfectly reliable. No blogs, no fringe websites, just mainstream British publications with actual staff. The fact that ADM uses British-based magazines and websites, and them being unheard of elsewhere, doesn't in itself make ADM or the sources they select any less reliable. From experience, I've seen no publication listed at ADM that's any worse than the likes ofSlate, whose website publishes reviews from college students and yet is constantly included at both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. The removal of ADM would negatively impact thousands of articles for no beneficial reason to the project.Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions)01:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chchcheckit:@Homeostasis07: Personal statements about source quality is not policy. I would ask that you consult the discussion below, as the RfC is specifically about the dueWP:WEIGHT of ADM'saggregate ratings in Wikipedia articles. Whether or not the site qualifies the vague personal assessments of "doesn't feel too slanty or biased either" or "the publications included by ADM seem perfectly reliable" is completely unconstructive. The topic of discussion here is not whether or not editors feel that ADM is useful or trustworthy, but whether or not ADM's aggregation holds real-world significance by virtue of it having received sufficient weight in reliable, independent secondary sources. This has been the only method by which the Wiki community has determined that an aggregator's ratings merit weight in Wikipedia articles. Due weight cannot be demonstrated through any one user's impressions of the site nor by any one user's comparisons of it to other aggregatorsWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (ahem: "it's the British Metacritic bro" / "But what about MC/RT usingSlate bro"). Even if the sources used by ADM are reliable or analogous to those used by Metacritic, that does not establish the authority of ADM as a source for aggregate ratings. "Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations", perWP:SUBJECTIVE. That does not mean we fill articles with a website's subjective interpretation and synthesis (read: methodology and aggregate ratings) of said "experts" when their ratings have received virtually no recognition or usage in reliable secondary sources. These two quotations from ADM ("We have a formula that is weighted to take into account the number of reviews an album receives, which gives an advantage to albums receiving more reviews." and"Not everyone gives numerical ratings so we read the reviews carefully and then have heated debates about whether it's a 7/10 or a 7.5/10. Sad, but true.") reflect exactly what a review aggregator is: a viewpoint about viewpoints. Wikipedia has no business consistently citing a source as an authority for review aggregation when no reliable sources are doing the same. You say "The removal of ADM would negatively impact thousands of articles for no beneficial reason to the project." What really harms the project is the thousands of articles elevating the distinct, subjective output of a website with no real-world prominence to the level of recognized critical consensus. That is what I mean when I say that articles are made to reflect real-world significance, not manufacture it.Οἶδα (talk)08:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to post a loooooooooooooooooong response to this under another subheader below all these discuss, as I have believe I have hit a breakthrough. //Chchcheckit (talk)14:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR: Articles must fairly and proportionally reflect established viewpoints of a topic. Articles are based on reliable secondary sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Wikipedia does not independently assess, validate, or elevate information that is nonexistent in those sources. As such, we should not be conferring legitimacy on this website by consistently citing their consensus ratings, especially when no reliable source does the same.
As of 2025, AnyDecentMusic? (ADM) is cited in over 3,000 Wikipedia articles, usually for its aggregated scores of critical reception. This widespread usage warrants a deeper investigation into whether the website's aggregated scores merit inclusion under Wikipedia's content policies.
For context, the article forAnyDecentMusic? was deleted after anAfD discussion found no significant coverage. A widely-participated 2016 RfC agreed that the aggregator should be added to the template{{Music ratings}}. The discussion has been used to determine that ADM may be used as a "generally reliable source" atWP:A/S. However, general reliability does not automatically confer weight, nor does it justify including the source in every relevant album article. Furthermore, the RfC did not substantively evaluate the reliability of ADM as a source for aggregation. The evidence presented consisted of just four articles and a superficial suggestion for users to check Google News, which does not demonstrate widespread or consistent use. The discussion focused on the perceived usefulness of the source, rather than further examining its reliability. Support for inclusion mostly amounted to "It looks reliable, why not add it" and "I think it's useful and different enough from Metacritic for its inclusion to be interesting to readers".
AnyDecentMusic? has not been the subject of independent, in-depth coverage that would establish the influence, methodology, or editorial authority of their consensus. Citations of its ratings are so rare as to be virtually nonexistent. They are rarely, if ever, cited by mainstream media publications, reputable music journalists, or academic sources to quantify the critical reception of albums, indicating a lack of established notability or editorial authority. There appears to be no indication that it is more than aWP:SPS by "Ally and Terry",[1]. Contrast this to Metacritic, which has received countless mainstream coverage citing their aggregation. Reliance on ADM's coverage or aggregate scores directly would need to be backed byWP:USEBYOTHERS. And from what I can find, the site has never once been mentioned by major websites such asBillboard,Pitchfork,Rolling Stone,Stereogum,SPIN,NME andThe Guardian. All of these publications are prominent in the world of music journalism. Including this album review aggregator in articles therefore givesWP:UNDUE weight to their consensus.
In a2023 discussion concerning an obscure film review aggregator being introduced into numerous film articles, user Betty Logan explained:"The reason we use RT and Metacritic scores in reception for films is not because RT or Metacritic are inherently notable (that is what their articles are for) but because the mainstream media regularly use them for quantifying the immediate reception of a film i.e. they have become a kind of industry standard." This is confirmed in the community discussions forRotten Tomatoes andMetacritic linked atWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which determined those sites to be "reliable" for review aggregation. If you read through them, you will find that the focus of the discussions about their aggregation (and not about biographical data) rested on whether including the aggregation constitutes dueWP:WEIGHT. These sources were considered "reliable" because their aggregation was widely used, cited, and established enough to warrant inclusion. Not because their review aggregation was 'reliable' in the traditional sense. Any aggregator is still entirely "reliable" within its own framework, even if it does not align with mainstream sources. After all, we are talking about ratings-based reviews combined with ADM's own subjective interpretation of unrated reviews, all filtered through its subjective synthesis of critics' reviews, which are themselves inherently subjective, as they convey an author's personal opinions.
What is the result of this RfC? I am unsure how to generate more participation here without canvassing, which I don't want to do. The original template RfC and project discussions had far more participation from the WPAlbums community.Οἶδα (talk)03:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2016 template RfC, these were the sources cited to demonstrate "the site's been mentioned in a number of third-party news sources as a gauge on critical consensus"
The user also suggested the following: "you'll have better luck finding hits that supports ADM's existence using GoogleNews". I am unsure what "hits" they were referring to in 2016. I would appreciate it if editors could collect here any other sources because after much research all I could turn up is the following:
That is a very narrow footprint in terms of coverage by independent, reliable sources over more than 15 years of operation. So the question becomes: is that minimal usage sufficient to justify its widespread inclusion across thousands of Wikipedia articles? If a review aggregator plays no discernible role in shaping the narrative around album reception in reliable sources, then its inclusion in article after article is not a reflection of real-world prominence but an editorial choice by Wikipedia editors.
In comparison, the following is a selection of reliable sources that cite Metacritic for its consensus on the critical reception of albums:
The Springer link, to an obscure Danish research project, is the same one that was cited in the now-deletedAnyDecentMusic? article. I accessed it, and this is the full extent of its coverage:
Meta-review websites, such as Metacritic, RottenTomatoes, or Anydecentmusic, collect evaluations from various media and present average scores
I also already listed theThe Line of Best Fit url above.
I never claimed that we should limit ourselves to Google searches or web sources alone. I've searched broadly across the web, newspapers, books, academic sources, and media archives. Though I'm not sure what purpose is served by downplaying how minimal the footprint is in web sources. AnyDecentMusic? is a website, one that has existed since 2009. If ADM were truly being cited with any meaningful regularity by reputable outlets for its aggregate ratings, we would expect to find clear evidence of that, especially in the world of online journalism, where aggregators likeRotten Tomatoes andMetacritic are routinely referenced. But we don't.Οἶδα (talk)07:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that ADM is a close competitor with Metacritic in terms of impact. I'm listing mentions for sake of inclusion. As to the argument, I don't think failing to find a lot of references in a Google Search is sufficient for what's essentially a blacklist against a source. Especially since Google Searches are a lot more skewed now. I've seen stuff disappear from the results if I search a keyword combination too much.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)12:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for compiling these four articles. Let's examine them:
A 2013 minor source (Tone Deaf) with a passing mention that it does not engage with ADM's aggregate ratings or treat them as a reliable measure of critical reception.
A 2025 blog (antimusic.com) that does cite ADM's rating, and is an obscure, unrecognizedSPS that doesn't meet standards for reliability underWP:RS, and is not listed atWP:ALBUMS/SOURCES as reliable.
A 2016 HipHopDX article is the only source here that both cites ADM's rating and comes from a generally reliable outlet. That brings us to exactly two reliable sources in over 15 years that actually cite ADM's aggregate ratings, one from BBC in 2014, the other HipHopDX in 2016.
A 2013 Barron's article with a brief mention only to ADM's now-defunct Spotify app, not its website or aggregate ratings
So we have two citations for ADM's aggregate ratings across more than a decade. I appreciate you listing these mentions, they are exactly what I was looking to collect. But again, by any reasonable standard of real-world prominence, this falls well short of what could justify treating ADM's ratings as an authoritative reflection of critical consensus. This is not about ADM stacking up to Metacritic, it doesn't hold up by itself. This is a clear reflection that ADM's aggregate ratings are not consistently cited or relied upon in reliable, independent secondary sources. A source that is cited only a few times across more than 15 years, and almost never for its core function as an aggregator: ratings. This does not meet the threshold ofWP:USEBYOTHERS orWP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is a reflection of how topics are treated in reliable sources. If ADM's ratings have not earned sustained recognition in independent coverage, we cannot justify giving them lasting prominence on Wikipedia, let alone across thousands of articles.
Also, this is not an attempt to "blacklist" a source, but to evaluate how its ratings are cited and how much weight they receive in the broader media landscape. As for concerns that Google is "skewed" or hiding content after repeated searches, there's no evidence that this materially affects the kind of high-quality, published sources that matter for Wikipedia's standards. Respectfully, it seems rather dishonest to suggest that this is a search issue. ADM is a website, not a print publication, andhas been around since 2009, not 1999, or 1970, or 1930. Usage is not as elusive you seem to be suggesting. Where's ADM's usage inBillboard? OrNY Times,Pitchfork,Spin,The Guardian,NME,Exclaim!,AV Club,The Telegraph,Stereogum,PopMatters,Rolling Stone,Consequence,American Songwriter,Variety,Entertainment Weekly,LA Times,Clash,The Quietus,Reuters,Blabbermouth.net,Loudwire,Under the Radar,BrooklynVegan,Complex,UPROXX?. I checked all of these sources before posting this RfC, and several others listed atWP:A/S and cited across thousands of Wikipedia articles. Tedious, I know. I also painstakingly searched between both "Any Decent Music" and "AnyDecentMusic". All the aforementioned sources had mentions of Metacritic scores. Nothing for ADM. I fail to see how the selection of articles presented above illustrate any meaningful pattern of ongoing or widespread usage. That isn't a demonstration of real-world prominence. It's just a selective scraping of minor references being stretched to imply a level of established editorial weight they clearly don't support.Οἶδα (talk)07:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is not an attempt to "blacklist" a source
So you agree that there hypothetically are situations where ADM could be reliably used?
Respectfully, it seems rather dishonest to suggest that this is a search issue
You're reading too much into that. Let me clarify, as I am not accusing you of negligence. I'm suggesting that a few mentions might be buried, not dozens. I don't disagree that Metacritic has a much greater media presence, by several factors of multiplication. I'm also sure that you did your due diligence in searching for sources. I apologize if my statements implied otherwise.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)12:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there hypothetically are situations where ADM could be reliably used?
Of course: as an external link, as a citation to indicate an album was reviewed by a number of/certain publications, as a citation for review quotes. In the latter circumstance, a direct reference is of course preferred but not easy for a lot of editors, particularly in the case of print publications. In such objective instances, there is no issue. I have seen Metacritic used and cited for all of the aforementioned purposes. It can be assessed that ADM generally publishes information accurately. That is a completely different standard from what makes an aggregator "reliable" for their review aggregation.
I don't disagree that Metacritic has a much greater media presence, by several factors of multiplication. I'm also sure that you did your due diligence in searching for sources. I apologize if my statements implied otherwise.
No worries, I wasn't really intending it that way. I believe we agree on this. But of course, I don't predict any elusive buried mentions to change the due weight of ADM's aggregation.Οἶδα (talk)07:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"What really harms the project is the thousands of articles elevating the distinct, subjective output of a website with no real-world prominence to the level of recognized critical consensus. That is what I mean when I say that articles are made to reflect real-world significance, not manufacture it" I don't believe acclaim is enough to create general "real world significance", in that a work can be forgotten through simply being ignored or not written about thereafter, or that sources that exist on the net can disappear in time, making things seem less notable than may have been interpreted. Not to mention a lack of indexed sources from print magazines or something. I guess any aggregate score is enough to shape a reader's perception of things.
That being said, I offer a counter-argument; instead of focusing on any decent music's notability on a wider wikipedia-article scale (aka mentions), it may be better to confer and follow examples of how reliable sources/publications haveused ADM to substantiate descriptions of critical consensus of an album in anancillary manner, as ADM doesn't provide descriptions of consensus aside from in its end of year lists, which are kinda self-explanatory in what they represent. This is going to be messy, but here's my attempt to collate various sources (mentioned both below and with other stuff i found on theh internet and through proquest) and highlight how ADM has been used in each of them. Furthermore, I believe that if reliable sources are willing to cite it, they have confidence in thereliability/quality of AnyDecentMusic's role as a review aggregator, especially when focusing on its specific usages in the articles.
I may refine this later, as I probably haven't explained everything/all that well.
articles citing ADM's scores to substantiate description of critical reviews
https://louderthanwar.com/josh-t-pearson-may-uk-tour-news/ "Josh T. Pearson’s debut solo album ‘Last Of The Country Gentlemen ‘- a collection of seven songs drawn from the lessons of what he describes as “a rough year”, was released in March to universal acclaim [...] (it is currently sat atop www.anydecentmusic.com with an impressive 8.1)."
Ondarock'sTravis Scott bio: on Astroword album. (translated) "For the first time, after years of lukewarm responses, even mainstream critics are praising the album, so much so that the score on the aggregator Metacritic reaches a respectable 85/100 and that of the similar AnyDecentMusic? at 8.1/10."
articles citing end-of-year lists aka "poll of polls" to substantite reception
https://repositorioacademico.upc.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/10757/684750/Salas_CI.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y En el año siguiente, Death Grips lanzó su álbum debut The Money Store (2012), el cual se estableció como un clásico moderno en múltiples revistas y páginas de críticas, como Rolling Stone, Metacritic y AnyDecentMusic? (Kenttä, 2019). (TRANSLATED: In the following year, Death Grips released their debut album The Money Store (2012), which established itself as a modern classic in multiple magazines and review sites, such as Rolling Stone, Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic? (Kenttä, 2019).)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29847969 "David Bowie was not the only one to make a surprise and critically lauded comeback this year [2013]. [...] According to Anydecentmusic.com, which keeps track of album reviews, [My Bloody Valentine'smbv] got the best reviews of any British or Irish album of the past 12 months."
https://www.demorgen.be/tv-cultuur/hoe-fiona-apple-toevallig-de-soundtrack-voor-de-quarantaine-maakte~bb10b356 (translated) "Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic are websites that calculate the average rating of album reviews. On both sites, Fiona Apple's Fetch the Bolt Cutters is currently in pole position for the best albums of 2020. According to AnyDecentMusic, she is second only to Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp a Butterfly (2015) in an all-time top ten."
Citingnewonce.radio:https://newonce.net/artykul/wspanialy-to-by-rok-top-10-najlepszych-rapowych-pyt-wedug-swiatowych-mediow (translated) "In our search forthe objectively best rap of the past twelve months, we turned to two popular review aggregators that collect reviews from critics from foreign editorial offices. Methodology: we only included releases that are listed in both the Any Decent Music and Metacritic databases; we added up the ratings after standardizing them, thus creating the final TOP 10.
other articles mentioning ADM (mainly just descriptions of what ADM is)
NEW ON THE NET. (2009, Nov 13).London Evening Standard Retrieved fromhttps://www.proquest.com/newspapers/new-on-net/docview/330392060/se-2 Quote: "The Metacritic website, which collates reviews into one all-encompassing mark out of 10, should be in any discerning music fan's bookmarks. Now a new British version at www.anydecentmusic.comfocuses on our broadsheets and music press to conclude that the best recent albums are by Fuck Buttons, McAlmont and Nyman and The Hidden Cameras." (notes the site's focus on british publications)
https://nlp.stanford.edu/courses/cs224n/2011/reports/cadander-esegel-jepense.pdf Quote: "Some existing sites such as metacritic.com and anydecentmusic.com do attempt to aggregate music reviews. Both these sites present users with an interface popularized by Rotten Tomatoes: an overall score for the album (normalized across the different sources), along with snippets from each of the reviews included that summarize the overall gist of the review."CAVEAT: Article goes on to mostly focus on metacritic; although it does not saywhy it chose MC over ADM or whatever (correct me if wrong, i skimmed a bit)
https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052748704253204578475990725435484 "Any Decent Music helps you discover the newest releases. The app aggregates album reviews daily from over 50 sources, including SPIN and Pitchfork, and lists them by point value. It even has a link to take you to the original review."
https://drownedinsound.com/news/4145205-half-year-half-dozen--six-recommended-albums-of-2012 "A few weeks ago, I asked the DiS boards what their favourite albums of the year so far were, but there was no real clear pattern of popularity. Consensus was also hard to find while watching all of the lists pour in from various sites and blogs, which isn't surprising given that the Metacritic, Album of the Year and AnyDecentMusic lists, which aggregate ratings by critics, seem to be a little different to one another."
Also, here's another possible counter-example against ADM's alleged manufacturing of"real-world significance": I'm currently writing an article (from scratch) about the albumRouge Carpet Disaster (2022) by the British bandStatic Dress, of which there isonly an ADM score and no Metacritic score. I have foundtwosources which both state the album received critical acclaim (which appears warranted given its appearence on several end of year lists and two nominations at theHeavy Music Awards, no less). As it stands, the reception reads thusly:
Rouge Carpet Disaster received critical acclaim.[S1][S2] On review aggregator AnyDecentMusic?, the album holds a score of 8.4 out of 10, based on reviews from seven critics.[ADM]"
This should be fine as: 1). to reiterate: ADM does NOT give descriptions of the level of acclaim an album receives; assuming the fact the site gives a high score = acclaim is anormativity issue, which leads me to point 2). perWP:WEIGHT,"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"; assuming ADM is the "significant minority" (because it gets less press coverage, butnot because it isn't mentioned inany reliable sources), then its score's adherents are effectively "named"/linked on the site, notwithstanding with the "acclaim" description being sourced elsewhere/independent of ADM. And finally, 3). Having a byline in the lead/reception where people go "[album title] received acclaim" is NOT necessary for album/song articles and should be avoided if (a) reliable source(s) describing its reception cannot be found, although i understand this can be annoying/not ideal (I have generally avoided doing "received" lines without sources sincethis GA review a year ago, although I have diverged from an absolute avoidance to simply referncing what critics praised or disliked; that doesn't equate to it having an overall positive reception/literally "critical acclaim/panned" if ykwim). Nevertheless, you could still write something in the lead like "music critics praised [album name] for ... [possible mention of less good stuff in due weight]" or whatever.
Also, I should note the following:the 2011 essay andDrowned in Sound (2012) both note the lack of a consensus between review aggregators in the music world (the former states: "While such aggregator sites have become popular in other domains—Rotten Tomatoes, for example, is presently the clear leader in the movie domain—no single site has taken the lead with music reviews").
TLDR with this whole thing: we must not forget that describing the critical consensus of an album is not necessarily dependent on aggregators, ADM included, which is why I think disagree with banning its use in articles. I believe that in general, the process of writing reception sections of albums/songs/etc will always require some intuition on the editors' part, correlating reviews (scored/unscored) and any reliable sources describing the consensus to determine whether or not a certain description of critical consensus should be used. I think ADM is relatively low impact in this regard, because it doesn't even have a labelled critical threshold unlike metacritic. Ultimately this means that when cited in articles (which appears to mostly happenalongside metacritic), the burden of proof for claims of "received x reviews" would either end up lying on metacritic, which it can deal with adequately (indicating "universal acclaim" etc), or on external publications (ideally two or more, one if there's demonstrably enough independence i.e. it didn't interview the creator of the work beforehand or something; idk tbh), which I have demonstrated.
P.S. I accept my initial responses were lackluster, prolly bc it was more directed at writing tone than argument, sorry. but whatever i dig this hole i dig myself out of it... or try to¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not sure how close to the mark/question this stuff is hitting but I enjoy challenging myself to think about previously unconsidered problems nonetheless //Chchcheckit (talk)19:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Metal Temple reliable? (Home page) I've seen it pop up as a citation on here for years, and have encountered it when researching many times. I always thought it looked kinda amateurish, but I have no real basis for that except for vibes. Here are some older versions for comparison:[2],[3],[4] - the CG art of the woman in scanty attire was a big part of my assessment, but I don't know if that's fair or not. On the positive side, it does have an editorial team and lists all of its staff:[5]. It's one of the better staff listings I've seen for these kinds of sites. On the negative side, I can't really find any use by others. I found one citation in a bookpage 608, and that's it.FMSky, you've cited the source recently - do you want to share why you think it's reliable? To be clear, I'm not challenging your assessment of it. Rather, I'd like to know your reasoning for why you view it as reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done)12:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also mainly looked at the staff page, which looks convincing. I don't really see a reason on why it wouldn't be reliable, but I'm not ruling out that I could be wrong.FMSky (talk)13:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
like I don't really see what backgrounds these writers have, and on the writers page some use ai generated profile images which gives me a bad vibe. that's not enough for a straight up rejection but I still feel like uhh we need to check.
So first, here's the site'sMuckrack. I'll go searching for the writers next.
I have nominatedYear Zero (album) for afeatured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets thefeatured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process arehere.Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions)22:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upset Magazine was a sister magazine to Dork published from 2015 until beingmerged into Dork in September 2023. Per the linked thing, both Upset and Dork shared the same editorial team. If need be I'll try get the names of some authors who wrote for the publication but yeah?
I am doing a GA review at the moment, and I'm a bit conflicted about whether the use of tags on a review of an album are sufficient for sourcing genres?WP:GENREWARRIOR doesn't say much on this, just that genre descriptions must be sourced and "explicitly stated by the sources". For example, couldthis review be used as a source to verify that the album qualifies as "pop punk"? The article itself has no prose regarding it or justifying the label, but pop punk is given as a tag at the bottom of the article.Leafy46 (talk)03:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this would not be allowed on the List of 20xx albums series of articles. I know who wrote the article, Jordan Blum. Who wrote the tag, what is the source? If you can't answer that question, then it can't be used as a source.Mburrell (talk)03:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I myself may have used tags as sources before, but I would avoid it to the maximum now, not only because they tend to be quite vague, but also because I believe some websites use tags that are not even chosen by the writers themselves.Victor LopesFala!•C20:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your responses here! To 3family6's point, I don't know if there is an reason to suppose that these tags are explicitly unreliable, but I agree with the general consensus here that trying to avoid their use is definitely a safer option when it is unclear whether the tags were selected by the author or not.Leafy46 (talk)21:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drowned in Sound legacy site - distinguishing staff vs. user reviews
I saw that inWP:RSMUSIC, it warns against using user reviews on DiS's old website, but how do you distinguish them from staff? I'm having a hard time finding any such user reviews. Given the semi-archived state the site is in, that might be at the root of my confusion.
It's a little convoluted, but the way I confirm it is that I click on the name of the album, which takes you to a page specific to its release (link for Tiswas). From here, you can confirm whether or not a review is by staff or not.Leafy46 (talk)22:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as Unreferenced for 10 years. Discovered during the November unreferenced articles drive. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. No evidence of notability.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Time on Earth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)01:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We Don't Need to Whisper has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)01:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ShouldThe Second Disc be added to the list of reliable sources? A lot of the site's articles seem to be written by its founder Mike Duquette who, according to Muck Rack, has written forAllMusic:[7] Other articles seen to be written by Joe Marchese, Marchese has written mainly for Yahoo! news articles outside of The Second Disc:[8] Those two seem to be the only two writers on the site, so i'm not sure what to think about the site's reliability.Newtatoryd222 (talk)04:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a limited-press album was previously kept without consensus atWP:AfD. Otherwise, I would have prodded it. Can a volunteer with this project please, either add reliable sources, or send it back to AfD?Bearian (talk)21:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even realize that we weren't allowed to do that. I've done that in at least one instance for aDeftones album, I think, where the magazine is in print only and I can't get all the details for a magazine ref.mftpdanoops13:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the problem (that tends to arise more in the video game content area) is that editors would just basically sloppily copy/paste all of the quotes from a MC page, to the reception section was basically a mirror of the MC page, which borders somewhere between "WP:COPYVIO territory", and "that's Metacritic's information to share, not ours". Its as 3family6 says, it's not that the information is "hard off-limits", but ideally you should cite the review directly, and probably not have the exact same pull quote unless it's really truly the best excerpt that can be grabbed.Sergecross73msg me14:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in the video game scope it's different, I don't have the experience there. I really don't find myself inclined to agree on the limited number of albums that I've seen it could possibly apply to, but I'll start marking any spots I see that apply with {{better source needed}}.mftpdanoops15:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And to add: the limited quotes that Metacritic use are not necessarily representative of a reviewer's overall opinion. There's a good chance that in many cases, those quotes strip important context that would be irresponsible to just ignore in a more detailed Wiki article. If I can't confirm the original source of a review, I don't include it at all. Otherwise, we're just taking MC's word for it, which isn't a great precedent.Fundgy (talk)00:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really answer the question, but the page forFallen does say that Evanescence were marketed as a Christian rock band around the time of the album's release. Thus, while the band may be secular, it certainly explains why Christian media would have picked up on the album and, in the case ofCross Rhythms, reviewed it. I don't really have a problem with this sort of use in general though, even if it's certainly fair to question whether such a review isWP:DUE.Leafy46 (talk)20:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know about this one. According to the list of editors and writers on their website (link), Quincy Dominic is the founder, owner, only editor, and lead writer. I can't find any information online to suggest that Dominic is a "professional music journalist or DJ", so this makesRatings Game Music seem more like a personal blog with the occasional guest post imo.Leafy46 (talk)23:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
