Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad 2

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 was No consensus - unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a clear opinion as to whether this meets WP:MUSIC or not (if the canvassing for votes had any impact I would have discounted them, but I don't think this would resolve matters here). Yomanganitalk 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Jackson Jihad

Previously deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad, but despite the new claims of notability, the band still does not meet WP:MUSIC. Where are their albums? What spots have they reached on notable charts? What national or international tours have they been on? Basements don't qualify, sorry. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong, speedy keep- The article has been rewritten (it is not a "re-creation of previously deleted material" because of the new content), because it meets OTHER criteria of WP:MUSIC besides the album releases and charting requriements, which if you'd bothered to read the article and the talk page, you would have discovered. The band has received more media coverage and awards since the last AfD, which I have cited in the new article. I have notified other editors about this article and its AfD as to gather more input for a clear consensus. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see reliable sources meeting WP:MUSIC. A Phoenix weekly paper (note: article link doesn't work) supporting an unreleased album isn't enough for me, sorry. I'm holding off on voting for the moment, but this looks distinctly non-notable to me, though I wish them the best. bikeable (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The ASU article link doesn't work, but the rest do. Check the talk page, look at the article. It meets plenty of WP:MUSIC requirements. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't get to the New Times article, sorry. Note that the ASU page (user: nopass, password: nopass, courtesy BugMeNot) is a university newspaper. From my point of view, a weekly article and a university article fall far short of the other criteria -- particularly, two albums. I think WP:MUSIC is a little uneven that way. Almost any local band has been featured in a local weekly at some point. bikeable (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Arizona State University is one of the most prominent universities of the Southwest. Phoenix New Times is the company that owns the Village Voice. We are the fourth largest metropolitan city in the United States. I am sorry that you cannot get to the articles cited, but they are there, they are cited, and the information puts this clearly over the WP:MUSIC line. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
          • WP:MUSIC says "non-trivial". The PNT is not the VV; they own a weekly in almost every city, mine included. Three sentences describing an upcoming gig appears very trivial to me, and I read the guidelines as excluding school papers. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I still don't see notability. bikeable (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • For the New Times article, I had to click on "Print Article" to be able to read it. Maybe we should change the link to the "Print Article" page. - Lex 00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry, PT, but how is this a "Strong, speedy keep"? What criterion of Wikipedia:Speedy keep does this fit? -- Kicking222 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I feel it is a bad faith nomination. It was placed on AfD three minutes after I put it up, and I did have all the citations and an explanation on the talk page at the first edit. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like the article shows the media mentions, so it meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Local bands get local press mentions. An article, in a national magazine, would be more fitting. It is trival and common for local acts to have interviews/reviews done or played on local radio. Arbusto 18:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per PT. I looked over the article and all the sources. This article seems to meet the requirements in WP:MUSIC. - Lex 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Which of these sources are notable and verifiable, a requirement for WP:MUSIC? (See WP:RS.) Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • All of them. Did you read the article? PT (s-s-s-s) 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Since I've given clear reasoning, and since you've responded to it, we already know both that I have indeed read the article, and theat you know that. Please remain civil. Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I civily ask you, then, to please stop wrecking things on Wikipedia, because I don't feel you are acting in good faith, nor do you know much about the topics you're nominating, and you are outright ignoring sources being provided. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am holding my vote too. This article is well referenced and written, but I am unsure about their notablity. Although there's no result of the band on All Music, but from the band's official website, they seemingly do go on national tours in a sense which should meet WP:MUSIC. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I still see nothing that passes WP:MUSIC. Every newspaper mention is from that of some college where they played with the exception of the Phoenix New Times, which doesn't appear to be the most reliable of sources. -- Kicking222 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There seems to be some dispute over whether or not the ASU paper, the Arizona Republic, or the Phoenix New Times are reliable sources (they are), but what cannot be disputed are the awards, nor the talk of the band in HeartattaCk, a very notable zine. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The claims to notability are unsourced with reliable sources, and therefore don't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Citing New Times as reliable is laughable, especially for a Phoenix native. I've been mentioned in the New Times for nothing much, and the story misquoted the other interviewee, too. The New Times is not a good measure of anything, and it's certainly not reliable. That and a blog and a student-written college paper (and it's an interview where they mention themselves offhandedly that they went on a tour): none of these are reliable. And after reading the article, I still don't know if they're even signed to a label. They're not even on allmusic. Nothing here meets WP:MUSIC, and Parsssseltongue's been spamming this AfD to boot. Dmcdevit·t 07:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be spamming if I went to a bunch of editors and said "PLEASE COME VOTE KEEP ON THIS AFD!" As I mentioned above (does anyone on Wikipedia actually bother to READ anything or anymore, or do they just work off assumptions?), I alerted editors to the article and the AfD to get their opinion, I didn't try to sway it one way or another. You claim to be a Phoenix native, one that has been in Phoenix New Times even, so you should know who AJJ is. And it doesn't matter that they're on a label or not, that is not the end-all be-all of WP:MUSIC. What too many editors on here are clearly missing is that other WP:MUSIC criteria has been met, as noted in the article and on the talk pages, with reliable verifiable sources (whether Dmcdevit has a grudge against them or not). PT (s-s-s-s) 17:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Dmcdevit does not have a grudge, but actually his opinion is based on sound reasoning. But thanks anyway for your insinuations. (Oh, and I "claim to be a Phoenix native". Nice.) The bottom line is that you have no reliable sources here, so no inclusion guidelines can be met. Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I am just curious why someone who claims to be from Phoenix and implies they are well-versed in music and media in the area would refute New Times as a legitimate publication, as well as refuting AJJ as a legitimate band. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - User:Parsssseltongue sent me a message, probably due to my opinions on the Rival Schools AFD. Sorry, but this is completely different situation - I haven't heard of them, their biggest gig was supporting Flogging Molly, hardly a huge band in themselves, there doesn't seem to be anything supporting a national or international tour (individual shows in different states IMO don't really count), nothing non-trivial, and they don't have CDs for sale on Amazon or anywhere in my country. 172 hits on Google, 126 listeners on last.fm, they don't seem to pass WP:MUSIC, so this is nn and probably vanity - albiet a well written vanity page. Halo 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be vanity if I were a member of the band. This is not the first time I have been accused of being the subject I wrote about, nor will it be the last (I also am accused of being certain banned editors, from time to time). Nevertheless, while there are WP:MUSIC criteria this article DOESN'T fit (radio play, album releases), the talk page will direct you to the criteria it DOES fit, and the sources are cited within the article. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I did state probable vanity - I didn't say it /was/ vanity. I checked the talk page. Specifically, I don't think they've done a full national tour, I wouldn't describe the competition as major, I don't think the articles are in major publications and the band doesn't establish a new notable style for a city (well, one that's /itself/ established enough to itself be notable and varifiable). -Halo 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • To answer: the article is not vanity. You not feeling the competition is major doesn't make it not major. The articles are in major publications. The style, as well as the city, as well as the band's placement in both, are notable and verifiable. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Dmcdevit, and Halo. Even with recent revisions, there are still no assertions of notability that both meet WP:MUSIC and are supported by WP:Reliable sources. --Satori Son 13:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There are PLENTY of assertions of notability within the article and on the talk page, and they are all cited with reliable sources. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree for the reasons clearly stated above by Dmcdevit and Halo. --Satori Son 18:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • But those reasons, while clearly stated, are totally wrong. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, potential but not up with WP:MUSIC. Deizio talk 13:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - OK, this is REALLY weird... there was an article about HeartAttaCk on Wikipedia for a long time, and yesterday was the last time I saw it. What has happened to it in the last 24 hours? PT (s-s-s-s) 17:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yet another G11 casualty. Who'da thunk you could advertise an out-of-business 'zine on Wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • A zine that you could get for free, no less (or at the very most have to pay 50 cents for). I assume you're being facetious about the idea of a defunct zine using Wikipedia space to advertise? I have requested a deletion overturn at the WP:DRV. Seems there is a war between the music fans and non-music fans. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with you on this particular CSD, but I don't think you should assume that those of us arguing about sources are not music fans. bikeable (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Not all, but a lot of these AfDs seem to be put up by people who don't really "get it." PT (s-s-s-s) 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Zoe; fails WP:MUSIC Eusebeus 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But how does it fail WP:MUSIC? The article was written with WP:MUSIC in mind, and all assertions of notability that meet that criteria have been backed up by reliable sources. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - "I haven't heard of them" is NOT an acceptable reason for deletion. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: If someone considers them well informed on the subject, then IMO "I haven't heard of them" is quite acceptable initial criteria. IMO, this article goes against the general jist and spirit of WP:Music. I admit that you put up a compelling argument, but it still doesn't quite fully establish any of the criteria. Halo 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: PT has asked me to look into this. I voted keep in a previous round at AfD, but I'm not clear on what "new information" has been added that should overide the weak consensus from that debate. The article is well-written and well-sourced, but the band at best treads just on the edges of our notability criteria. Vote withheld (for now at least). -MrFizyx 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My friend/guardian angel... the new information has to do with the Best of Phoenix award and the controversy in HeartAttaCk over AJJ's lyrics. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry old friend, I'm staying out of this--I see you've sent invitations to all the "keep" votes in our last debate, but none of the "delete" voters. Still, may the better argument win. -MrFizyx 04:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Fizyx has also provided a great link regarding AJJ's connection to audioconfusion. PT (s-s-s-s) 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per arguements above, cite information, notable group, media coverage. While the coverage is college papers, which i dont think are RS, others have repeatedly told em they are including the people at WP:RS. --NuclearZer0 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No released albums, the "awards" are extremely minor, the coverage seems to be in local rags. Read the intent of WP:MUSIC, not the strict legalistic wording, as it was hardly written to legal rigor. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. College newspapers and community newspapers are reliable when they do their job properly, as most of them do. "Local rags" are perfectly acceptable as sources. The rule is that a band is notable if it meets any one of the criteria, and this band does. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a local band having news mentions is completely normal. Any proof the band has sold 5000 records per WP:BAND? That would have this. Arbusto 01:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't need to have sold 5000 records. It already meets WP:MUSIC, as stated on the talk page. PT (s-s-s-s) 02:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • 1) You created the article. 2) You posted comments on the talk claiming it meets WP:MUSIC, but no one else agreed. 3) The only sources that meet WP:V are local papers. Even then there is only three articles; none meet WP:MUSIC. 4) Taking all that into account and the policy at WP:MUSIC, this should be deleted. Arbusto 04:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • So you're claiming that all of the media mentions are "trivial?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure about Arbustoo, but I am. Four barely qualifies as "multiple", the mentions tend to be trivial (a gig listing in a local newspaper) and I'm not convinced of the reputability of something using using the domain "ecollegetimes" as notable. They aren't MTV, put it that way. The whole thing goes against the spirit of WP:MUSIC. The fact that the article was written "with WP:MUSIC in mind" makes me stroke my chin and wonder if WP:MUSIC is a little too broad, and if people want to scrape the barrel they could get any local band's articles kept. Halo 13:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I have seen the hordes of non-notable bands whose members put up a page and get speedily deleted. This is not one of those bands. There seems to be a prejudice against this band, whether for where they hail from or what kind of music they do. You've gone as far as to pick apart the reliability of the coverage, when there should be no question about the Arizona Republic or Phoenix New Times (or HeartattaCk, for that matter, though an overzealous deletionist is now trying to get even THAT article deleted). Yes, I created the article. You point that out as if it affects my credibility, when in fact, I am well versed on the topic and can speak more to its notability than you. PT (s-s-s-s) 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'd like to point out that you pointed me to this article, along with a bunch of other people who voted "keep" on AFD. I hadn't heard of them before you messaged me. I'm not biased against them at all, I'm thousands of miles away. Independently, I've decided that based on all the criteria claimed, they aren't notable, and yes, that includes the small mentions in local newspapers and even smaller websites/music magazines, and even the nowhere-near-a-full-tour. Halo 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
                • My mistake, my apologies, I get mixed up sometimes, as I'm trying to keep track of a lot of different comments and editors. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Answering Badlydrawnjeff, yes I am claiming those as trival. I'm in favor of keeping a notable band, but these articles are not convincing of anything other than a local band. Arbusto 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That's kind of misleading. I mean, every band is from SOMEWHERE, every band is a "local band" in some town. It's not like AJJ hasn't toured. And give WP:MUSIC another read - a band who is prominent in their hometown is still under consideration for notability. I think the problem now is some editors in this AfD are horribly misjudging the reliability of the sources, and I'm not sure what that stems from except a failure to recognize anything from Arizona as notable because it's not New York or L.A.. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd argue they aren't even prominant in their home town. Seriously, you've given references to articles in local newspapers, all of which are minor mentions that list several bands, or articles in other publications whose notability is stretched. Halo 19:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Which links are you clicking? I'm giving references to publications that have done feature articles on them or bestowed awards upon them. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Phoenix New Times is just a very short mention in an article, it's trivial. AZNightBuzz is a very short mention in a blog, so I wouldn't call that non-trivial. The eCollegeTimes is a longer article, but I can't establish notability of the site (there's only 50 unique hits on Google). StatePress seems more like it, but is still an article in a local University newspaper. As for Heartattack, I'm unsure of its notability or contents, but even if we count that, it doesn't count as "multiple", and even those articles that do count are still marginal at best. -Halo 21:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Parsssseltongue give one source in the national media. Give any source to prove this is band has a following outside their local area. Arbusto 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Do a Google search, and you will see where they are mentioned in several places, as well as verification of their tour dates. PT (s-s-s-s) 23:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per overkill above :-) /Blaxthos 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. As for reliable sources, I really don't see one. The ASU article is expressly out per WP:MUSIC: "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." The AZ Night Buzz is a blog. And the College Times? Definitely not something I would consider reliable. The article in the Phoenix New Times is not displaying for me, so I am unable to judge the content of the article itself, but the publication as a whole is a local paper for a large city, but it is still not a far reaching paper, leaving its value rather limited as well. Even if these articles were considered to be reliable sources, the next question is, would this band meet WP:MUSIC? They have not gone on a national tour. They have toured a portion of the U.S. They don't have two or more albums on a major label, no major music competition, no major award, they aren't getting radio time, and they don't have any independently notable members. As for "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city...", I see nothing to support that argument, even with the sources given. So with or without the sources given, I believe this band does not meet WP:MUSIC and should be deleted. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/note to closing admin - I don't see a real consensus here. I would ask that we default to keep, for the time being, and allow the article to expand. While there is some disagreement about the notability of the sources, I feel a convincing case has been made for this band meeting parts of WP:MUSIC. Please allow time for more content, and for events to unfold that may change the minds of those who feel the band hasn't "done enough yet." PT (s-s-s-s) 21:14, 17 October 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.