Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 nomination was Keep, after rewrite. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabba (band)

Band does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria on any counts. No albums for sale that I can see, no verifiable tour info (though originally I thought I had found tour info, it was in fact for another tribute band called "Gabba Gabba Hey"), and I can't see anything that meets other criteria. I suggest Delete, though if this is kept the historical section needs to be rewritten as it is lifted from their MySpace page.--Isotope23 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Per note from originator, this is not the same text as the MySpace page... either I was mistaken or the MySpace page changed... regardless, I've strucken the text above.--Isotope23 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: I'm probably reading too much into this " or the MySpace page changed ", but just for the record: I'm not linked in any way with this band. Actually, I even refrained from contacting them about notability references. (Because of their punk nature, I was afraid they may just barge in and make a mess). 62.147.37.227 10:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment, yes... you are reading too much into it. I was not in any way accusing you of somehow orchestrating a change to Gabba's MySpace page so the text would be different than the article, thus rendering my comment incorrect without generating an edit log on the Wikipedia article. That would be a bit Machiavellian wouldn't it? Most likely scenario, I just made a mistake.--Isotope23 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
No offense intended, I was just being proactive in the full disclosure departement. As for the MySpace text: considering that any article dealing with them will quickly feature a memorable sentence such as "Stig Honda decided to fuse the disco pop of Abba and the punk rock of The Ramones", I guess that anyone is quite easily liable to get déjà vu over them, even when the sentences are different. -- 62.147.37.122 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't view all the evidence below right now due to a webfilter issue, but I'm recinding my delete opinion for the time being until I can get to looking through it all in the next day or so.--Isotope23 11:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability Artw 18:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Informations and references 62.147.112.67 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • They are listed by All Music. They have been signed and have released albums. Their main 1999 CD is out-of-print (thus no Amazon listing) and replaced with downloads at digital stores (such as ArtistDirect, iSound, FullDls, etc.)
      Update - Their out-of-print CD is replaced with free MP3s at their site, and free downloads at Torrent sites such as Mininova [1], Fulldls [2], etc. (as for ArtistDirect and iSound, they're actually just listing a database dump of the album, as "not available") -- 62.147.37.227 10:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Discography of Gabba at All Music Guide (and various other sites using the same database, such as MMMatch or Yahoo Shopping)
    • Quoting site, CAPS and all: "GABBA's first album LEAVE STOCKHOLM has been warmly received across Europe, USA and Australia. GABBA have featured on Radio 1's EVENING SESSION, in MOJO magazine, on BBC TELEVISION and RADIO SCOTLAND... as well as a brief cameo in an upcoming FILM release." from [3]
    • Their CD reviewed in 2002 at Impact Press
  • I won't be able to get to this until this evening, but I will review the links above and if this meets WP:MUSIC I will withdraw the nomination.--Isotope23 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per above infos 62.147.112.67 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Full disclosure: I had beefed up this stub a few days ago 62.147.36.9 12:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - About the note "historical section needs to be rewritten as it is lifted from their MySpace page": I'm the one who beefed that article and section, and I didn't cut-n-pasted nor "lifted" anything, it's my own writing summarizing what I read: I had even left a big hidden HTML comment explaining precisely that with my doubts about some points since they seem so prankish, so there's no copyvio there, there's only some additional research to be done to check if some if their bio data isn't playfully bogus. -- 62.147.112.67 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Assertions of notability are made, but none of them seem to be backed up. Can we get some links to press coverage, or at least something more specific than a list of media outlets? Having three albums is great, but two of them are not even available anymore and one is banned (for whatever reason), which does not indicate notability. The extent of the group's entry on allmusic.com is one album listing - no biography of any kind. IMO, the claim to notability is extremely weak here, especially given that this is only a tribute band. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - When dealing with their apparently silly pages, one should keep in mind they're into British punk subculture antics. For instance, their producer being "Phil Smegma (né Sphincter)" looks like a hoax, but should be put in the context of Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious from the Sex Pistols - 62.147.37.227 10:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Search tip - Potentially useful to those who'd look this up: Google being very broken since their February 2006 "Big Daddy" update, replicating Google searches in http://www.altavista.com/ (same index as Yahoo) can yield additional results for non-mainstream topics like this. And since gabba (dab page) has so many more common usages, adding markers such as "abba ramones", "leave-stockholm", "stig honda", or "discopunk", helps filtering out results. -- 62.147.37.227 10:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as a result of 62.147.37.227's excellent research, which establishes a sufficiently notable and verifiable public presence. Tyrenius 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Note - Thanks. Since the stub's creator has been bitten out of Wikipedia, and I was the only other contributor, I had a duty to step in lest a valid article be killed through my inaction. -- 62.147.112.218 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, disco punk becomes increasingly notable and so does the band Gabba. - Face 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on my post above:
    About 199,000 Google results for "disco punk" (exact phrase). [6]
    About 46,100 Google results for "discopunk". [7]
    About 117,000 Alta Vista results for "disco punk" (exact phrase). [8]
    About 10,500 Alta Vista results for "discopunk". [9]
    Face 12:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Postultimate informations - (also merged into the article) -- 62.147.112.218 19:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Their single "Gabba Gabba" is allegedly on sale on the iTunes UK store (I can't check that, I don't have iTunes for browsing their catalog, or rather catalogue). That's the song they had contributed to an international tribute album to the late Joey Ramone (a 2001 CD, cf. article).
    • They had been reviewed in The Ramones UK Fan Club Newsletter (Number 24, February 2000) - A thumbnail screenshot of it, because the full image is broken at Archive.org
  • Meta-comment: jury duty (In a calm, relaxed tone.)
    • I'd like to say I find it rather appalling that people who voted "Delete" never came back to the debate, to confront the evidence about the article they had sentenced to death. And this, despite their being informed twice on their talk page about the detailled list of notability evidence gathered, and despite being wiki-active since.
    • I understand that an AFD isn't a vote per se, and how its reviewing process can strengthen an article -- but this works better, and doesn't give such a sorry spectacle, when an actual debate takes place.
    • Yet it's currently possible to just mass-slap AFD's and Delete's without any further involvement, personal responsibility, accountability, or moral sense of duty.
    • The results can then give the appearance of pathological witch-hunting or kangaroo court, rather than debate. As if a bunch of jurors would just say "Burn the witch" early in a trial, then leave the court before defense is pleaded. "It'll git a fair AFD, and then y'all can delete it."
    • As a rule of thumb, I think that someone who initiates or participates at some point in an AFD should have some sort of a "jury duty" to come back at least once on the 4th or 5th day, especially when he voted "Delete". He could then review evidences, update his vote or explain why he maintains it -- or at the very least counter-sign his vote with a second ~~~~, so as to act of his presence before the sentence he's in part responsible of.
    • As a rule of thumb, someone should thus not engage in more AFD debates than he can, or intend to, actually handle.
    • -- 62.147.37.122 11:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you post these comments on the AfD talk page. Tyrenius 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If it is any consolation, this is 99.99% certain to close on at least a no consensus which would default to keep. I don't know if you noticed, but I removed my deletion opinion several days ago pending investigation of the sources. After looking at the sources I'm not 100% convinced they meet WP:MUSIC, but they are very close to the line. It's close enough that I'm simply rendering no opinion either way. If there were no deletion opinions I would probably withdraw this AfD nomination. But as it stands I'm fairly certain this article will be kept, and with the improvements you've made to it over the past few days 62.147.37.122 I think the article makes a stronger case towards WP:MUSIC now than the version that was there when I nominated it... and thanks for staying WP:CIVIL throughout the debate.--Isotope23 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, at this point I'd suggest that you please don't withdraw it, anyway: its being archived and referenced on the article's talk page should provide a valuable starting point for the many next AFD's I'm sure such article will go through again: I've merged all sources and references into the article, but we have here some additional angles of defense that can't be put into the article itself. And on an optimist note, it would also provide a useful starting point for mounting a request to undelete. -- 62.147.37.122 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment the deletes which have not returned to comment on the mass of new information researched considerably weaken their voice in the debate, and could even be discounted for this reason.Tyrenius 16:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do share this opinion, but as far as I know it's just your opinion and mine: I mean, I don't remember anything in the AFD documentation that suggest, recommend, or prescribe treating votes in this fashion, to the admin who'll have the fatigue task of closing this debate. -- 62.147.37.122 18:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Not so. It's not votes; it's a discussion, and if in a discussion someone makes a point which is then answered, and that first person remains silent, they have tacitly concurred. Tyrenius 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, and codifying this would take away the admins' discretion upon closure. I think most admins look at what has transpired and if evidence was provided at some point that makes a case towards guidelines or invalidates an argument, they take that into consideration. Regardless of the outcome, hopefully the admin will tag the talk page with a banner showing this already underwent AfD and what the outcome was.--Isotope23 20:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The tagging is a standard part of the procedure. There's a wide latitude of discretion. Tyrenius 23:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I didn't check what this page looked like before but they sure look notable now. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:22, 10 July 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Gabba_%28band%29_b16f.html"