Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downrising

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 09:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Downrising, Matt Bieler, Paul Escandon

Delete - google search returns <500 results, most seem to be unrelated. Also nominating other articles such as band members, etc... Wickethewok 07:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; non-notable; fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. The band doesn't even have an allmusic profile. However, per Drshabazz's comments, weak keep Paul Escandon because of his work on The Outdoor Channel.--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Response re: Paul Escandon - should NOT be deleted because of the following guidelines listed in WP:BIO - "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Paul Escandon has edited over 30 tv shows that appear on a national cable network (The Outdoor Channel) with a viewership of over 26.7 million households in the United States alone. That alone meets the criteria to be listed in Wikipedia, and that is not even to mention his independant film work. This is verifiable. The "Google test" is listed as purely an alternative means to verify notability... in this case an alternate means need not be used. You nominated Paul seemingly because of his connection to Downrising, however, without the passage that related to his former band the article still merits inclusion. Drshabazz 08:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question/Request - Could you perhaps link to some information regarding Paul Escandon? I can't seem to find any on the web about him and thus be able to verify what you are saying. Wickethewok 16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response: IMDB Profile - not all credits listed here yet but IMDB is generally considered reputable. Drshabazz 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response to response - I only see one credit as an editor of some show. That doesn't seem to be notable to me. Wickethewok 23:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Response: You asked for an outside link that showed "some information on Paul Escandon" and that has been provided. IMDB has a long approval process and waits for individuals to submit show and credit information (just like Wikipedia) and as an effect not all credits will show up on that site in a timely fasion. You will note that while The Outdoor Channel has a Wikipedia entry, there are very few of its shows that actually have listings on IMDB. As previously stated, based on the acceptable publishing rules in WP:BIO, the fact that current shows he's edited have been viewed by over hundred's of thousands of individual times more than warrants an entry. If you absolutely require empirical proof to accept these claims, then you can watch the channel in which his shows air and you will see his name listed on official credits. Drshabazz 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Response to response of response to original response, just to note, IMDb is not always the best way to prove the notability of a topic as movie information is based upon user submissions. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: He didn't create the show, so the criteria doesn't apply. Fagstein 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:BIO - an editor doesn't create books (in a certain sense) written by authors yet editing gets specific mention as acceptable criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drshabazz (talk • contribs).
      • I've read it, thanks. I'm pretty sure it refers to editors who compile works (and are hence the "author"). Simply editing a text or some video is hardly notable. Should everyone in the CNN control room get an article too?Fagstein 18:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know where you've obtained such a blase attitude about film editing but the fact of the matter is that editing episodic television or drama is incredibly creative and meaningful and the profession is essential to a finished work. I'm going to chalk it up to ignorance on your part as I'm sure you're not in the profession or even the industry...but editing is not "simple" and a newsroom editor has a far different task then someone who's job it is to tell a coherent story in episodic tv. Just my $.02 on the matter. 68.70.209.150 10:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • So your response to my question is "yes"? I'm not dissing film editing here. I've edited film myself and I know it's hard. But that doesn't make this guy notable. Thousands of people will work on any feature film. Fagstein 14:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Response re: Downrising - Downrising was nominated under WP:BIO yet should be considered under the rules of WP:MUSIC as it is a band. They should NOT be deleted as per WP:MUSIC - Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable - in the article you will note that Aaron Rossi has been part of at least 4 notable acts that also have wikipedia articles. Also from WP:MUSIC - Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above - in the article it is stated that Mike Moss has created music for KRS-One. Other comments - the band was featured in a segment on the KTLA Morning News in Los Angeles on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 that featured the band in the studio recording and their music and that also meets a big general criteria that the article is significant as it describes something well known and or interest. Drshabazz 08:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) - I have no idea about the Allmusic profile thing but it does definitely meet other criteria for inclusion (already stated). Drshabazz 09:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question/comment - I've been searching the web looking for the term 'Downrising' in conjunction with the band members and can't find results that aren't Xanga, MySpace, or the band's website. Could you perhaps post a link here to some information about the band/members that wasn't written by the band/members? I would encourage others who would be voting to keep this article based on what they read here, to hold off until some facts outside of the band's own website are presented.Wickethewok 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Paul, Weak keep Downrising, Weak delete Matt Bieler. per Drshabazz. Downrising is linked to KRS one, hugely notable, and Paul Escandon is notable for other reasons ⇒
  • Comment - Is being linked to something notable make something notable? Does everyone who is connected to KRS one in some way make them notable? Also, we don't even have proof that they have ever worked with KRS one. Wickethewok 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Paul, Abstain others JeffBurdges 12:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain Escandon; Delete others Eusebeus 14:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, mostly per above, grouping nominations now appears inappropriate. Monicasdude 14:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, looks notable. --Terence Ong 14:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all - Paul Escandon and Downrising more than meet the acceptable criteria listed in WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, Bieler for his relationship to a band that deserves a WP entry. Bonjourno 00:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as non-notable, despite inappropriate grouping. Fagstein 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't notice you here, though it makes sense.68.192.25.106 01:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 1 and 3, merge 2 with 1. Notability, in my honest opinion, is anything anyone can find useful, and in my view is that notability should not warrent an argument. However, the 1st is notable since they have performed, and thus gained their name on the program, meaning they are part of the world's collection of Rock Bands. The 2nd article is too small to warrent an article, and is really a sub-article of the 1st, so it should be merged. The 3rd article seems unrelated, and should be kept since it is a stub, meaning it is still developing.68.192.25.106 01:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Your argument is based on the fact that you disagree with WP standards. Hmmm... Wickethewok 04:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on Comment No, that is outside of this. I disagree on notability issues, but that is not influencing this here. 68.192.25.106 00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Anyway - no information on the band is verifiable as to its notability as of yet imo, as the only source of info regarding the band is the band's own website. Also I'd like to point out that a search for Downrising on Last.fm yields ZERO results. I have more results searching for my own work on Last.fm than there is for "Downrising". Wickethewok 01:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Evan1975 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Evan1975 - Care to argue why a band that gets no relevant google hits except for their own website is notable? Wickethewok 06:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - If/when this debate is redone for a clearer consensus, recommend two different nominations/debates. Seems kinda silly as anything on Downrising is not verifiable information from reliable sources, as the only information about them is their band website. Wickethewok 06:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• No consensus, except on the Escandon article, which we appear to have agreed to keep. Relisting, since I think it wouldn't be too hard to get more input on the other two articles. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Downrising is not notable. If they were notable, there would be revelant results for a google search besides their own website. There is no proof of notability from reliable sources. There are ZERO results for them on Last.fm. I don't really know what else you can ask for as proof of a non-notable band. I think we agreed above with the deletion of Matt Bieler. Wickethewok 16:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.